Letter in the Times today
Discussion
Got a letter in the Public Agenda section of today's Times.
Sure Nonegreen'll think I'm being too soft again... but then you should have seeen the first draft.
www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1217730,00.html
IT IS sad that Richard Brunstrom resorts to insults in his attempt to win the road safety debate (Interview, Aug 10). All the more so when he and the Association of British Drivers are on the same side. Both of us want to see road deaths fall — and fast.
More than 1.6 million speeding fines were issued in 2002 alone, and it is now thought that about 20 per cent of the driving public have speeding points on their licences, yet the decline in fatalities has reversed with 2 per cent more people dead on the roads last year.
Mr Brunstrom’s hardline speed-enforcement policy makes three dangerous and unsubstantiated leaps of reasoning. The first is that exceeding speed limits causes crashes. The second is that adhering to a posted speed limit will stop drivers crashing. The third is that absolutely enforcing that speed limit will reduce deaths.
This policy fails to differentiate between exceeding a speed limit and an inappropriate speed for the conditions. It takes no account of observation, anticipation, hazard management or driving skill.
It’s only when we recognise how complex the driving process is and educate all road users accordingly that we’ll start to reduce crashes.
Mark McArthur-Christie,
road safety spokesman, The Association of British Drivers, Bampton, Oxfordshire
Sure Nonegreen'll think I'm being too soft again... but then you should have seeen the first draft.
www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1217730,00.html
IT IS sad that Richard Brunstrom resorts to insults in his attempt to win the road safety debate (Interview, Aug 10). All the more so when he and the Association of British Drivers are on the same side. Both of us want to see road deaths fall — and fast.
More than 1.6 million speeding fines were issued in 2002 alone, and it is now thought that about 20 per cent of the driving public have speeding points on their licences, yet the decline in fatalities has reversed with 2 per cent more people dead on the roads last year.
Mr Brunstrom’s hardline speed-enforcement policy makes three dangerous and unsubstantiated leaps of reasoning. The first is that exceeding speed limits causes crashes. The second is that adhering to a posted speed limit will stop drivers crashing. The third is that absolutely enforcing that speed limit will reduce deaths.
This policy fails to differentiate between exceeding a speed limit and an inappropriate speed for the conditions. It takes no account of observation, anticipation, hazard management or driving skill.
It’s only when we recognise how complex the driving process is and educate all road users accordingly that we’ll start to reduce crashes.
Mark McArthur-Christie,
road safety spokesman, The Association of British Drivers, Bampton, Oxfordshire
MMC - I saw your quote in the IAM's Advanced Driving magazine - well done. Wasn't it interesting to note that our Chief Examiner when giving his quote about what he'd do if he was Transport Minister spoke about changing policies which aliented the public and improving education...
I suspect a greater than ever number of IAM members are now also members of the ABD - or, at least, have a sympathy for the ABDs reasoning...
I suspect a greater than ever number of IAM members are now also members of the ABD - or, at least, have a sympathy for the ABDs reasoning...
Don said:
MMC - I saw your quote in the IAM's Advanced Driving magazine - well done. Wasn't it interesting to note that our Chief Examiner when giving his quote about what he'd do if he was Transport Minister spoke about changing policies which aliented the public and improving education...
I suspect a greater than ever number of IAM members are now also members of the ABD - or, at least, have a sympathy for the ABDs reasoning...
I suspect you are right!
Know of several -
IAM members, RoSPA members, AA members, AA patrolmen, lots of BiBs, ex Brake members
, who are more in tune with ABD than scamerati. Have also written letters similar in tone to scamerati and known pro-scam mob. Along with other family members
Good letter - by the way. Replies will also be - interesting. Gather "Express" (know someone who works for this paper
) had lot of replies supporting the Frederick Forsyth article on follies of scams. So - where do they drum up the "support stats" from? Not met anyone who supports scams, nor anyone who really believes they are there purely and simply for "safety reasons".
simonrockman said:
This sounds a lot like the correspondence I'm having with Caroline Flint MP, who seems to be the MP for speed cameras.
Simon
she'a also the MP for a lot of other things, like the confiscation of peoples passports (no crime proven), the criminalisation of ALL firearms ownership, speed reduction (by whatever means) and the imposition of a cold war East German state "by the back door".
Not bad for a lass who went to the University of East Anglia and "studied" the history of the american film industry.
MoJo.
No problems Dibble! If I set myself up for a pixx take by the job I do, what should I expect?!
Hell - it could have been worse. I was nearly an academic. Now that would have been plain dangerous - I can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.
There's a great deal of toss and bollox in the ad/PR/marketing "industry" - I just hope we manage to avoid being the cause of too much if it.
I'm always very conscious that I don't do a job that can be prefixed by "Thank God - here comes the (insert job of choice)". Try it...
In other words - I'd be on that golgafringian "B" ark... (seewww.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/golgafrincham.shtml) with the telephone sanitizers and the management consultants...
Still, it's fun and a lot better than working for some goddamn corporation. Done enough of that.
Hell - it could have been worse. I was nearly an academic. Now that would have been plain dangerous - I can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.
There's a great deal of toss and bollox in the ad/PR/marketing "industry" - I just hope we manage to avoid being the cause of too much if it.
I'm always very conscious that I don't do a job that can be prefixed by "Thank God - here comes the (insert job of choice)". Try it...
In other words - I'd be on that golgafringian "B" ark... (seewww.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/golgafrincham.shtml) with the telephone sanitizers and the management consultants...
Still, it's fun and a lot better than working for some goddamn corporation. Done enough of that.
MMC said:
I'd be on that golgafringian "B" ark...
HHGTTG - absolute quality, still funny now, even rererererererereading it after all these years!
Apache said:I'm glad you think I can manage to debate, rather than just go "All right my son, you're nicked..."
I've tried debating with these idiots
Or perhaps you were just suggesting I am a Master Debater!
Dibble said:
I'd be on that golgafringian "B" ark...
HHGTTG - absolute quality, still funny now, even rererererererereading it after all these years!
Apache said:
I've tried debating with these idiots
I'm glad you think I can manage to debate, rather than just go "All right my son, you're nicked..."
Or perhaps you were just suggesting I am a Master Debater!
Dibble old man, I certainly wasn't including you in this, I was referring more to self elected 'experts' like Vicky Cann, Mary Williams, David Begg etc. they don't even respond now
Thanks Apache. Appreciate it 
I think the only way to get safer roads, better driving standards and fewer people in coffins IS to argue the toss with the scamerati, the "won't you think of the children" lobby and the greens.
The completely stupid thing is that nearly all the people from the "other side" I've met are smart, decent people who want to see what we do - but they disagree like hell as to how we go about it.
They think control, punishment and enforcement will do the job. I think people are smarter than that. The more laws you pass, the more you need. The more you control the more people try to dodge. The more punishment you impose for "compliance" offences (and don't we LOVE those in the UK nowadays) you have, the more people look for loopholes.
There are broader issues at stake here too. I find it deeply saddening that the current obsession with “safety” and “risk” should be to make us ever more passive. Rather than equipping people to take control, deal with risk head-on and mitigate it with smarter, better skills we rush in with the cotton wool and remove any trace of it. The scary thing about this is that you simply can’t remove risk from life without removing something of life itself.
Jeez - up too early, bed too late and too much Maker's Mark in between...
I'll get me coat...
I think the only way to get safer roads, better driving standards and fewer people in coffins IS to argue the toss with the scamerati, the "won't you think of the children" lobby and the greens.
The completely stupid thing is that nearly all the people from the "other side" I've met are smart, decent people who want to see what we do - but they disagree like hell as to how we go about it.
They think control, punishment and enforcement will do the job. I think people are smarter than that. The more laws you pass, the more you need. The more you control the more people try to dodge. The more punishment you impose for "compliance" offences (and don't we LOVE those in the UK nowadays) you have, the more people look for loopholes.
There are broader issues at stake here too. I find it deeply saddening that the current obsession with “safety” and “risk” should be to make us ever more passive. Rather than equipping people to take control, deal with risk head-on and mitigate it with smarter, better skills we rush in with the cotton wool and remove any trace of it. The scary thing about this is that you simply can’t remove risk from life without removing something of life itself.
Jeez - up too early, bed too late and too much Maker's Mark in between...
I'll get me coat...
Apache, no offence taken, my reply was very much tongue in cheek!
I put up with much worse when I'm at work (and that's just from colleagues!)
In Brake's defence, they do provide us with a very useful booklet to give to next of kin at fatals. It includes how the investigation is run, what happens at court etc etc. Not a trace of the "speed kills think of the children" etc etc in it.
I put up with much worse when I'm at work (and that's just from colleagues!)
In Brake's defence, they do provide us with a very useful booklet to give to next of kin at fatals. It includes how the investigation is run, what happens at court etc etc. Not a trace of the "speed kills think of the children" etc etc in it.
Dibble said:
In Brake's defence, they do provide us with a very useful booklet to give to next of kin at fatals. It includes how the investigation is run, what happens at court etc etc. Not a trace of the "speed kills think of the children" etc etc in it.
Exactly what we should be doing in the ABD too...
Dibble said:
In Brake's defence, they do provide us with a very useful booklet to give to next of kin at fatals. It includes how the investigation is run, what happens at court etc etc. Not a trace of the "speed kills think of the children" etc etc in it.
And it is a pity they do not confine themselves to that, which does appear to be in their sphere of competence, rather than making rash statements about things of which they have very little knowledge.
kevinday said:
In Brake's defence, they do provide us with a very useful booklet to give to next of kin at fatals. It includes how the investigation is run, what happens at court etc etc. Not a trace of the "speed kills think of the children" etc etc in it.
And it is a pity they do not confine themselves to that, which does appear to be in their sphere of competence, rather than making rash statements about things of which they have very little knowledge.
They also have some other strange ideas about using victims to get message across.
The advice booklets, work on improving garage standards - all commendable - but trying to use victims to promote the "speed kills" argument to family of petrolheads whose past incidents had nowt to do with speed - resulted in family of petrolheads accelerating hard outa there! We are now more than firmly planted on the other side now!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff