INSURRECTION - Part 2
Discussion
You can read the first part of this post by clicking on my name and then Part 1.
I want to make it quite clear that the whole intention here is to challenge the status quo and unite everyone to bring about real change.
Our two largest enemies are prejudice and ignorance.
I will NOT respond to foul language, personal, blatant insults and any other negative rhetoric.
If you have something to say, make it positive and creative or not at all.
Simply singling out speed cameras and other detection equipment and attempting to have them rescinded is just not going to work; we have to offer the Government an alternative and it has to be more comprehensive than just the concept of forcing regulations on the driver to control speeding.
Therefore I am going to ask you to consider the concepts involved in my own personal experiences over the years, the first is every driver's nightmare, and what the Government would try to convince you is the main reason for the existence of cameras, striking a pedestrian with a vehicle.
In '83 I left my workshop in Johnstone in Renfrewshire to go home early at about 5-30 in the evening. I turned right from a side road into the main High Street
and changed up into second gear. At this time of night the traffic was fairly busy but there was nothing in front of me for about two hundred yards.
The left of this High St is lined with four storey tenement flats and, as I drew level with the last entrance, a child of about 7 or 8 years of age flew out of the entrance carrying a large carrier bag and ran straight into the middle of the road. He was laughing and looking backwards into the entrance and still had his head turned when he hit the vehicle.
The biggest problem with the visual image of this was my car. It was an '81 BMW E-12 535i Motorsport, an extremely rare car of utterly phenomenal capability, but one ,as they say, that looks like the dog's bollocks. If Street is reading this, I've no doubt he can summon a photo up from his monster archives, I would appreciate that.
You will notice that I said "HE hit the vehicle"; that was because I was almost stationary by the time he actually ran into the front of the car.
I cannot in words truly convey to you what it feels like to hit a child; the instant adrenalin injection into your system gives the illusion of a slow motion replay, and then the unfolding horror of what has happened drives home as the child's body disappears below the bonnet line; unforgettable forever!
As I threw the door open and ran round the front of the car the relief of the visual image of him on his hands and knees but alive was overwhelming. There was blood on the road but it was from his hands and knees as he crawled over the now smashed lemonade bottles that had been the contents of his carrier bag. I gripped him round the waist and lifted him as a woman who turned out to be a nurse ran over and offered to help.
The child was screaming uncontrollably as the nurse picked out glass from his hands and knees and an older lady, who turned out to be the child's gran ran from the close shouting at him in a mixture of anger and relief. A nearby cafe owner told us he had phoned for an ambulance and the nurse took the child upstairs to care for him 'til it arrived.
This all happened literally in seconds and, as they disappeared into the close, two men walked up to me and the first started shouting, "f*****g maniac, you nearly killed him, bastards like you should be banned!" I could smell the alcohol from him and it was obvious they had just come from the pub on the corner. Just at that the Police arrived, so quickly in fact that they must have been in the following traffic.
The drunk started shouting, "I'm a witness, he nearly killed that kid!!" So what is the first thing the copper says? Not "is the child alright?" or "has anyone called an ambulance?" or "where is the child?" or "can you tell me what happend here sir?"
No, it's "what speed were you doing in this thing?", "thing" no doubt being a reference to the BMW.
As you can imagine all I could think about at this moment in time was the child, I was not in the mood to argue with a couple of drunks and a belligerent copper, but I could see where this was going and the danger I was in. At that moment a 6ft 3in bearded angel in the form of "Big Wullie" the local bus driver and a customer of mine stepped into the fray, looked the copper in the eye and said, "Sergeant, that's my bus over there I saw the whole thing and so did thirty passengers and that car saved the child's life, I've never seen anything stop so quickly. The kid ran straight out of the close into the front of the car!"
The copper asked how the car managed to stop without leaving skid marks and I gave him a quick resume on the principles of ABS braking systems; you have to remember this was the early eighties and ABS had just been developed.
The ambulance arrived and took the child to hospital and apart from a bruised head and cuts on his hands and knees he was OK. There isn't a day goes by when I don't think about that child, but most importantly it totally changed my outlook on road safety and how we get it soooo wrong.
Let's consider if I had been the average driver in say a Cortina, do you think the child would have survived?
Let's consider the abscence of "Big Wullie" from the scenario, do you think I would have survived?
It turned out the two drunks had come out of the pub AFTER the accident had occurred and didn't even see it!! I'm sorry, I'm not one for abusive language, but the phrase utter bastards seems appropriate.
Now most importantly consider how this relates to todays methods, speed cameras, the "fixed brakes Nissan" ad and all the other nonsense that is going on and then remember that the incident I have just detailed happened TWENTY ONE YEARS ago.
How effective have the present policies been up to now to change this?.
I want as much comment and feedback on this as possible because this is very important, the issues in this are our future ammunition to implement the change. Sorry it's so long, but it's all relevant.
I want to make it quite clear that the whole intention here is to challenge the status quo and unite everyone to bring about real change.
Our two largest enemies are prejudice and ignorance.
I will NOT respond to foul language, personal, blatant insults and any other negative rhetoric.
If you have something to say, make it positive and creative or not at all.
Simply singling out speed cameras and other detection equipment and attempting to have them rescinded is just not going to work; we have to offer the Government an alternative and it has to be more comprehensive than just the concept of forcing regulations on the driver to control speeding.
Therefore I am going to ask you to consider the concepts involved in my own personal experiences over the years, the first is every driver's nightmare, and what the Government would try to convince you is the main reason for the existence of cameras, striking a pedestrian with a vehicle.
In '83 I left my workshop in Johnstone in Renfrewshire to go home early at about 5-30 in the evening. I turned right from a side road into the main High Street
and changed up into second gear. At this time of night the traffic was fairly busy but there was nothing in front of me for about two hundred yards.
The left of this High St is lined with four storey tenement flats and, as I drew level with the last entrance, a child of about 7 or 8 years of age flew out of the entrance carrying a large carrier bag and ran straight into the middle of the road. He was laughing and looking backwards into the entrance and still had his head turned when he hit the vehicle.
The biggest problem with the visual image of this was my car. It was an '81 BMW E-12 535i Motorsport, an extremely rare car of utterly phenomenal capability, but one ,as they say, that looks like the dog's bollocks. If Street is reading this, I've no doubt he can summon a photo up from his monster archives, I would appreciate that.
You will notice that I said "HE hit the vehicle"; that was because I was almost stationary by the time he actually ran into the front of the car.
I cannot in words truly convey to you what it feels like to hit a child; the instant adrenalin injection into your system gives the illusion of a slow motion replay, and then the unfolding horror of what has happened drives home as the child's body disappears below the bonnet line; unforgettable forever!
As I threw the door open and ran round the front of the car the relief of the visual image of him on his hands and knees but alive was overwhelming. There was blood on the road but it was from his hands and knees as he crawled over the now smashed lemonade bottles that had been the contents of his carrier bag. I gripped him round the waist and lifted him as a woman who turned out to be a nurse ran over and offered to help.
The child was screaming uncontrollably as the nurse picked out glass from his hands and knees and an older lady, who turned out to be the child's gran ran from the close shouting at him in a mixture of anger and relief. A nearby cafe owner told us he had phoned for an ambulance and the nurse took the child upstairs to care for him 'til it arrived.
This all happened literally in seconds and, as they disappeared into the close, two men walked up to me and the first started shouting, "f*****g maniac, you nearly killed him, bastards like you should be banned!" I could smell the alcohol from him and it was obvious they had just come from the pub on the corner. Just at that the Police arrived, so quickly in fact that they must have been in the following traffic.
The drunk started shouting, "I'm a witness, he nearly killed that kid!!" So what is the first thing the copper says? Not "is the child alright?" or "has anyone called an ambulance?" or "where is the child?" or "can you tell me what happend here sir?"
No, it's "what speed were you doing in this thing?", "thing" no doubt being a reference to the BMW.
As you can imagine all I could think about at this moment in time was the child, I was not in the mood to argue with a couple of drunks and a belligerent copper, but I could see where this was going and the danger I was in. At that moment a 6ft 3in bearded angel in the form of "Big Wullie" the local bus driver and a customer of mine stepped into the fray, looked the copper in the eye and said, "Sergeant, that's my bus over there I saw the whole thing and so did thirty passengers and that car saved the child's life, I've never seen anything stop so quickly. The kid ran straight out of the close into the front of the car!"
The copper asked how the car managed to stop without leaving skid marks and I gave him a quick resume on the principles of ABS braking systems; you have to remember this was the early eighties and ABS had just been developed.
The ambulance arrived and took the child to hospital and apart from a bruised head and cuts on his hands and knees he was OK. There isn't a day goes by when I don't think about that child, but most importantly it totally changed my outlook on road safety and how we get it soooo wrong.
Let's consider if I had been the average driver in say a Cortina, do you think the child would have survived?
Let's consider the abscence of "Big Wullie" from the scenario, do you think I would have survived?
It turned out the two drunks had come out of the pub AFTER the accident had occurred and didn't even see it!! I'm sorry, I'm not one for abusive language, but the phrase utter bastards seems appropriate.
Now most importantly consider how this relates to todays methods, speed cameras, the "fixed brakes Nissan" ad and all the other nonsense that is going on and then remember that the incident I have just detailed happened TWENTY ONE YEARS ago.
How effective have the present policies been up to now to change this?.
I want as much comment and feedback on this as possible because this is very important, the issues in this are our future ammunition to implement the change. Sorry it's so long, but it's all relevant.
yeah, it would be good to be united, instead of constantly slagging fast cars, bikes, vans, trucks, or 4x4's as being the root of all evil. We're going to need to stand together if we are to beat the evil that is overtaking the system. Been trying to push that point quite a lot, but everyone seems happy to live in their own niche while quietly ignoring the facts that other road users have different vehicles, and none are better than any other.
Still, glad you were ok mate. Could have got nasty.
Drive safely everyone.
Still, glad you were ok mate. Could have got nasty.
Drive safely everyone.
You are going to have similar problems as the ABD. It doesn't have a very large membership, and although it represents all of us motorists, trying to get everyone on board is an uphill struggle.
Part of their problem is focussing too much on cameras, although the newsletter covers so much more. While I agree with everything that you are saying, and acknowledge that you want to keep clear of the camera only debate, I can't see you getting very far. I am not apathetic, but you are also up against the AA, the RAC foundation, the FTA, the RHA and others, all of whom have vested interests, and none of whom seem to be able to form a coherent argument, let alone fight for the motorists that they claim to represent.
We can all talk sense about motoring issues, and can see thge arguments for engineering solutions to accident black spots, the common sense in variable speed limits outside schools, education for pedestrians of all ages, and other common sense solutions to a whole raft of motoring problems, but until we get a government, of any hue, who will listen and act in OUR interests, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
I am so sorry to p*ss on your parade, and wish you all the best, and will lend my support for a worthy cause, but I won't hold my breath either.
Part of their problem is focussing too much on cameras, although the newsletter covers so much more. While I agree with everything that you are saying, and acknowledge that you want to keep clear of the camera only debate, I can't see you getting very far. I am not apathetic, but you are also up against the AA, the RAC foundation, the FTA, the RHA and others, all of whom have vested interests, and none of whom seem to be able to form a coherent argument, let alone fight for the motorists that they claim to represent.
We can all talk sense about motoring issues, and can see thge arguments for engineering solutions to accident black spots, the common sense in variable speed limits outside schools, education for pedestrians of all ages, and other common sense solutions to a whole raft of motoring problems, but until we get a government, of any hue, who will listen and act in OUR interests, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
I am so sorry to p*ss on your parade, and wish you all the best, and will lend my support for a worthy cause, but I won't hold my breath either.
Can only agree with you MadJock, not to mention the vested interests of Transport 2000 and other quasi "safety" groups who are only propaganda machinery for industry (in this case busses/trains) who have NOTHING to do with safety.
And of course you have to remember that these socialist scum who call themselves govenment have only got in due to the apathy of the general majority of voters, and whose (the Governments) very existance is only due to Spin Doctors sending out Daily Mirror type headlines everyday instead of REALLY GETTING SOMETHING DONE. These useless idiots are ONLY interested in their next (overpaid) salary and election, they don't give a tuppeny damn about Britain....
Balance this apathy against the majority of 32million car drivers and we're left with a very small amount of drivers who MIGHT be willing to (poorly) join an existing movement (who has done all the work for them).
Paul Smiths excellent work is a good example, he gets slagged off by a political policeman like Brunstrom who is not in the position to counter Paul's solid proven arguments, so he sends a "closed" letter to his colleagues and Paul's opinions/research is thrown onto the pariah pile!!!
We DO need to get together, using a conglomeration of people like the ABD, Paul Smith and others who are crying in the wilderness and make an organisation club/company/political party who is going to take the drivers view and not some damned greeny or nannystate view.......
32 million out of aopprox 65 million is a good percentage if they can be motivated... but at the present it'S divide and rule by the government and others, which has been very successful...
If only 1 million cars descended on London and caused gridlock these control-freak parasites called the government would panic and invoke the anti-terrorist laws...which they almost did with the petrol protests!!!! but driver/voter apathy has now let them off the hook!!
And of course you have to remember that these socialist scum who call themselves govenment have only got in due to the apathy of the general majority of voters, and whose (the Governments) very existance is only due to Spin Doctors sending out Daily Mirror type headlines everyday instead of REALLY GETTING SOMETHING DONE. These useless idiots are ONLY interested in their next (overpaid) salary and election, they don't give a tuppeny damn about Britain....
Balance this apathy against the majority of 32million car drivers and we're left with a very small amount of drivers who MIGHT be willing to (poorly) join an existing movement (who has done all the work for them).
Paul Smiths excellent work is a good example, he gets slagged off by a political policeman like Brunstrom who is not in the position to counter Paul's solid proven arguments, so he sends a "closed" letter to his colleagues and Paul's opinions/research is thrown onto the pariah pile!!!
We DO need to get together, using a conglomeration of people like the ABD, Paul Smith and others who are crying in the wilderness and make an organisation club/company/political party who is going to take the drivers view and not some damned greeny or nannystate view.......
32 million out of aopprox 65 million is a good percentage if they can be motivated... but at the present it'S divide and rule by the government and others, which has been very successful...
If only 1 million cars descended on London and caused gridlock these control-freak parasites called the government would panic and invoke the anti-terrorist laws...which they almost did with the petrol protests!!!! but driver/voter apathy has now let them off the hook!!
JMGS4 said:
Can only agree with you MadJock, not to mention the vested interests of Transport 2000 and other quasi "safety" groups who are only propaganda machinery for industry (in this case busses/trains) who have NOTHING to do with safety.
If only 1 million cars descended on London and caused gridlock these control-freak parasites called the government would panic and invoke the anti-terrorist laws...which they almost did with the petrol protests!!!! but driver/voter apathy has now let them off the hook!!
I take on board everything you say and all others who have tried to impart to me the danger of apathy, and I thank you for that, but you have to understand I have been working on this for years and have absolutely no illusions about the way people are in this country and the insidious way in which the Government operate.
However the solution I have is entirely different from all the other organisations.
But I would refer you to your mention of the fuel protest, and incidentally, I'm not being pedantic, but it's very important that you recognise it was a diesel protest more than a petrol one, it was the truckers, God bless them, that almost brought the country to a standstill. Had they a leader and a clearly defined intellectual goal they would undoubtedly have succeeded.
I will never forget two things about that protest; the look of fear on the PMs face and the fact that despite the monstrous inconvenience to the public, the truckers were backed up wholeheartedly.
My idea developed during the Poll Tax years, you had to have been in Scotland at that time to realise just how bad it was. I mean we had riots in the streets, we haven't had that since the great depression!! The fact that Margaret Thatcher considered it acceptable to "try out" the idea on the Scots was so grossly insulting and created outrage that was so uncontrollable that it stopped it dead in its tracks; that is what we have to accomplish, but there is a way to do it through the workings of the system to swing the balance of control in favour of the motorist. Just give me a few more days to outline some further cases to illustrate legal principles and then I'll outline the concept of the idea.
I'm not being alarmist, but if we can't get people to come on board and get this to work, then I'm convinced our country will degenerate even further; there's nothing to stop it from doing so.
That gentlemen, and ladies, has nothing to do with speed cameras, it has to do with the expanding, unrestricted abuse of power.
Iolaire – your incident with the small kid – exactly the same happened to me 30+ yrs ago with 8 yr old girl who ran out of an alley in front of a series IIA Landrover doing about 25 mile/h. My reactions were good and I hit her at about 5 mile/h. She was taken to hospital and thankfully found to be more shocked than bruised. My ‘Bug Wullie’ was the tiny wool-shop owner who had seen the incident and explained the truth forcefully to the small crowd of angry self opinionated loudmouths who gathered as well as the police. In my case it was age and student status.
I think that this sort of incident underlines what the problem is – that the majority of the public, whether drunk or not simply do not think rationally or analytically. They form knee-jerk judgements on simple emotive responses ( most of us are programmed to feel protective towards children ). They are swayed by the soundbite and go along with it.
There are two things which we have to do – continually work at making the soundbites work for us – Paul Smith does a superb job at a totally rational level ( but how many politicians and reporters begin to understand the detail of his arguments ) The ABD do a good job at getting the opposing soundbite in
Secondly I am re-assured to hear daily of nice ordinary people getting their NIPs. Why they are even appointing magistrates with speeding convictions now. Eventually there will be a critical mass of people who know that the present policy is a farce as in the poll tax and fuel protest. We each of us need to voice our opposition wherever possible to show that they have not got it all their own way and more important to encourage dissent.
I think that this sort of incident underlines what the problem is – that the majority of the public, whether drunk or not simply do not think rationally or analytically. They form knee-jerk judgements on simple emotive responses ( most of us are programmed to feel protective towards children ). They are swayed by the soundbite and go along with it.
There are two things which we have to do – continually work at making the soundbites work for us – Paul Smith does a superb job at a totally rational level ( but how many politicians and reporters begin to understand the detail of his arguments ) The ABD do a good job at getting the opposing soundbite in
Secondly I am re-assured to hear daily of nice ordinary people getting their NIPs. Why they are even appointing magistrates with speeding convictions now. Eventually there will be a critical mass of people who know that the present policy is a farce as in the poll tax and fuel protest. We each of us need to voice our opposition wherever possible to show that they have not got it all their own way and more important to encourage dissent.
Richard C said:
Iolaire – your incident with the small kid – exactly the same happened to me 30+ yrs ago with 8 yr old girl who ran out of an alley in front of a series IIA Landrover doing about 25 mile/h. My reactions were good and I hit her at about 5 mile/h. She was taken to hospital and thankfully found to be more shocked than bruised. My ‘Bug Wullie’ was the tiny wool-shop owner who had seen the incident and explained the truth forcefully to the small crowd of angry self opinionated loudmouths who gathered as well as the police. In my case it was age and student status.
I think that this sort of incident underlines what the problem is – that the majority of the public, whether drunk or not simply do not think rationally or analytically. They form knee-jerk judgements on simple emotive responses ( most of us are programmed to feel protective towards children ). They are swayed by the soundbite and go along with it.
There are two things which we have to do – continually work at making the soundbites work for us – Paul Smith does a superb job at a totally rational level ( but how many politicians and reporters begin to understand the detail of his arguments ) The ABD do a good job at getting the opposing soundbite in
Secondly I am re-assured to hear daily of nice ordinary people getting their NIPs. Why they are even appointing magistrates with speeding convictions now. Eventually there will be a critical mass of people who know that the present policy is a farce as in the poll tax and fuel protest. We each of us need to voice our opposition wherever possible to show that they have not got it all their own way and more important to encourage dissent.
This is a first class response and exactly what I am looking for and what we need Richard. An instinctive grasp of the essence of the problems and the understanding that virtually none of that essence is being recognised or tackled by the Government.
You are spot on about the soundbite thing, you can make people believe anything by utilising the power of the media. My God, the Fiesta has for years been the best selling small car in Britain!!!
But of course this works both ways, and that is part of the philosophy behind my reference to swaying power and control in favour of the motorist.
I'll repeat once again, our two enemies are prejudice and ignorance, from the man in the street right up to High Court level.
Much credit must also go to people like Paul Smith, his common sense and experience are invaluable and I hope he will come on board and join us, but as my ideas unfold you will see that it is a much wider ranging and potentially powerful solution that I am proposing.
We are nearing critical mass, that's why I have waited 'til now, because I think the time is ripe.
One thing we do have going against the speed kills tendency is that the ordinary person in the street KNOWS they are not really a criminal or an irresponsible speedster and knows that something is wrong when they and others ARE criminalised.
Speedcop and others might object when I compare what is happening in this country to Nazi Germany in the '30s but it is true in effect - the only difference is the degree. As Wildcat often alludes to the Stasiin former E Germany.
And I agree that its not just speeding - its the whole damn thing. The political elite are deliberately allowing the establishment to erode long established rights and gain power's that they have no business to ask for.
We are well on the road to a police state in too many areas and most of us see only a small picture.
This is not paranoia - in the motoring area RTA 1988 S172 is a serious and unjustified breach of individual freedoms - as are many of the judge and jury seizure of Motor Vehicles powers given the Police under the 2002 Reform Act.
Apart from sheer incompetence, MAFF aided by the police and army frequently acted illegally and brutally in the 2001 Foot & Mouth disaster. The BBC ensured that nothing was publicised and any enquiries were farcical whitewashes and a raft of new powers were granted the now named DEFRA - most of these are unnecessary and their execise will lead to further breaches of basic rights.
And that just two areas I have some knowledge of.
the reaction of most citizens is to deny what they hear or see for themselves. It is easier that way. Its our job to raise the profile - If the internet had existed in 1930 probably the holocaust would not have happened !
Speedcop and others might object when I compare what is happening in this country to Nazi Germany in the '30s but it is true in effect - the only difference is the degree. As Wildcat often alludes to the Stasiin former E Germany.
And I agree that its not just speeding - its the whole damn thing. The political elite are deliberately allowing the establishment to erode long established rights and gain power's that they have no business to ask for.
We are well on the road to a police state in too many areas and most of us see only a small picture.
This is not paranoia - in the motoring area RTA 1988 S172 is a serious and unjustified breach of individual freedoms - as are many of the judge and jury seizure of Motor Vehicles powers given the Police under the 2002 Reform Act.
Apart from sheer incompetence, MAFF aided by the police and army frequently acted illegally and brutally in the 2001 Foot & Mouth disaster. The BBC ensured that nothing was publicised and any enquiries were farcical whitewashes and a raft of new powers were granted the now named DEFRA - most of these are unnecessary and their execise will lead to further breaches of basic rights.
And that just two areas I have some knowledge of.
the reaction of most citizens is to deny what they hear or see for themselves. It is easier that way. Its our job to raise the profile - If the internet had existed in 1930 probably the holocaust would not have happened !
My thoughts are well known on this subject.
Basically i wont lay off on irritating them, getting under their skin, being the most dire pain in the arse theyve ever encountered until they capitulate and
off out with their "safety" cameras.
And if they wont voluntarily capitulate to a common sense argument, then forces outside of their miniscule comprehensions will be brought to bear and in ways theyve never even dreamt of in their very worst nightmares.
Theres a lot we can do either singly(preferred option) or together as a group. A group is a strength asset, but its also a weakness, because they can use what we say on open forums like these to gain an edge, an edge which we have already taken from them, the dft dropping the insistence on the One third lie being only one such instance of a loss of face for their hate campaign.
The biggest problem of being in "a group" is always the infiltration aspect, something we can also use against them (its already being done im sure
) this is why im not a big fan of "groups". Incidentally, thats the reason why Le Capitan has been so succesful so far; Loose cells working independentally but for one purpose using whatever methods, (after all the opposition do) to hit them where it hurts.
Overall, id say a group has some clout, but the minute it becomes too big, then i feel it is in danger of being subverted or otherwise attacked.
Theres only ONE way around it: Initiation of some form (usually something a plod or their agents wouldnt dare do) to determine the true motives of would-be members.
If all this sounds a bit anarchistic, a bit too much "splinter cell" then im afraid the truth is this: THAT is what its going to take if reason fails with these dictators, and reason hasnt exactly made them sit up and take any notice recently.
If anyone has a better plan, then im all ears, but to be honest, i dont think appealing to their sense of reasonablness and fair play will quite cut the mustard.
I am ALL ears.
Basically i wont lay off on irritating them, getting under their skin, being the most dire pain in the arse theyve ever encountered until they capitulate and
off out with their "safety" cameras. And if they wont voluntarily capitulate to a common sense argument, then forces outside of their miniscule comprehensions will be brought to bear and in ways theyve never even dreamt of in their very worst nightmares.
Theres a lot we can do either singly(preferred option) or together as a group. A group is a strength asset, but its also a weakness, because they can use what we say on open forums like these to gain an edge, an edge which we have already taken from them, the dft dropping the insistence on the One third lie being only one such instance of a loss of face for their hate campaign.
The biggest problem of being in "a group" is always the infiltration aspect, something we can also use against them (its already being done im sure
) this is why im not a big fan of "groups". Incidentally, thats the reason why Le Capitan has been so succesful so far; Loose cells working independentally but for one purpose using whatever methods, (after all the opposition do) to hit them where it hurts. Overall, id say a group has some clout, but the minute it becomes too big, then i feel it is in danger of being subverted or otherwise attacked.
Theres only ONE way around it: Initiation of some form (usually something a plod or their agents wouldnt dare do) to determine the true motives of would-be members.
If all this sounds a bit anarchistic, a bit too much "splinter cell" then im afraid the truth is this: THAT is what its going to take if reason fails with these dictators, and reason hasnt exactly made them sit up and take any notice recently.
If anyone has a better plan, then im all ears, but to be honest, i dont think appealing to their sense of reasonablness and fair play will quite cut the mustard.
I am ALL ears.
IOLAIRE said:
......we have to offer the Government an alternative.....
Why?
I'm all for giving them alternatives, but why have to?
If someone mugged you, would you "have to offer" them an "alternative"?
Basically too many motorists try to argue about which pocket they would prefer to have picked first, or what size boot they would prefer the government to walk all over them with.
When the environMentalists stop a motorway being built do they feel they "have to offer" an "alternative" (apart from a motorway-free world?).
The only alternative they offer is a quiet life for the government, or a big stink.
I'm all for increasing the numbers of ways to make life difficult for the anti-motorist brigade. But please don't fall into the trap of thinking that you "have to offer" an "alternative": once you do that you have already accepted their chosen battleground and as good as surrendered to them.
James - I've just sent you an email expressing general support (immediately before seeing the email you sent me) but I'd like a little time to collect my thoughts before saying anything very specific.
I'm sorry that some PHers are not more optimistic about changing things in our favour, but my attitude is that unless we try we shall not achieve what we want.
I do not subscribe to the view that it is a waste of effort trying to do something that is difficult, and where the prospects of success seem limited. If we all took that attitude nothing would ever improve.
If you really believe in something I think you should fight for it to the best of your ability, otherwise the chances of success are zero, not merely small.
May I suggest that what we need to do is try to identify what we really want, and then produce the most powerful campaign we can muster in order to try and get it.
Incidentally, I do not believe it is wrong to think in terms of offering alternatives. Indeed I believe we have to offer a rational set of proposals that can be seen by the public at large as offering an overall improvement in the motoring climate. At present public opinion is almost certainly not on our side, and if we are to achieve any meaningful progress towards the motoring environment we want, we need a much wider span of support that we have right now.
Can we get on with it please, while I still have a bit of my motoring career left?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I'm sorry that some PHers are not more optimistic about changing things in our favour, but my attitude is that unless we try we shall not achieve what we want.
I do not subscribe to the view that it is a waste of effort trying to do something that is difficult, and where the prospects of success seem limited. If we all took that attitude nothing would ever improve.
If you really believe in something I think you should fight for it to the best of your ability, otherwise the chances of success are zero, not merely small.
May I suggest that what we need to do is try to identify what we really want, and then produce the most powerful campaign we can muster in order to try and get it.
Incidentally, I do not believe it is wrong to think in terms of offering alternatives. Indeed I believe we have to offer a rational set of proposals that can be seen by the public at large as offering an overall improvement in the motoring climate. At present public opinion is almost certainly not on our side, and if we are to achieve any meaningful progress towards the motoring environment we want, we need a much wider span of support that we have right now.
Can we get on with it please, while I still have a bit of my motoring career left?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Richard C said:
One thing we do have going against the speed kills tendency is that the ordinary person in the street KNOWS they are not really a criminal or an irresponsible speedster and knows that something is wrong when they and others ARE criminalised.
Speedcop and others might object when I compare what is happening in this country to Nazi Germany in the '30s but it is true in effect - the only difference is the degree. As Wildcat often alludes to the Stasiin former E Germany.
Thought police, Liebchen?
Both the Mad Doc and I have been hissing and spitting over the Guy Fawkes thing on the General Gas forum ..... diddums - we will upset catholics by celebrating Guido's failure... (think they are more worried by the effigies this family burned last year 
... Er- each membr of this family who hosted a bonfire bash for all their mates - burned effigy of Dick clutching his Gatso....with hugest cheers from all present...) Now judges are banned from alluding to wimmin in the dock as "she" and "she" has to be "they" (as if we are all preggers?
) and "one" is out for bein' a bit "Qweeny" 
As for "nitpicking" - well that that is also "out" which on the plus side makes the prats politically incorrect cos they are NITPICKING Bar-stewards.... but on the other hand we are not allowed to "brainstorm" as thinking deeply is not politically correct either - as we see the flaws in their argument.... And the mad Doc says I sound like Sir Humphry a bit here
Blummin' STASIS!
RichardC said:
And I agree that its not just speeding - its the whole damn thing. The political elite are deliberately allowing the establishment to erode long established rights and gain power's that they have no business to ask for.
We are well on the road to a police state in too many areas and most of us see only a small picture.
This is not paranoia - in the motoring area RTA 1988 S172 is a serious and unjustified breach of individual freedoms - as are many of the judge and jury seizure of Motor Vehicles powers given the Police under the 2002 Reform Act.
In the meantime - according to one popular paper today - "Catching criminals is not a top priority" The cops see their role as "working on the causes of crime"
Ah - yes "Legalise heroin" Tell that to the Mama of the 13 year old who died cos he meddled with a drug "which he read DickEd saying "was not very dangerous"" and will DickEd (who wants to save so many lives by perscuting pensioners who dare to overtake a tractor in perfectly safe road conditions and without threat to another road user at all because he chose safest place to do so) have the guts to llok this mama in the eye and tell her this drug is "not so very dangerous!"
It is all a sham to cover up their incompetence. We all know this (und meine liebsten Liebchen - Strassen
, Dibble et al - SORRY - not at all baiting nor bashing you guys in particular - because it is not your fault at all that you have the most pathetic of the pathetic bossing you about!} We have all related personal anecdotes about the crime number and general reluctance to sort out the victim.
Please! We want cops to catch the crooks and we want them to eat porridge. If they want to - they can psychoanalyse them to heart's content in prison.
However, what we are seeing is "brainwashing" of "criminals in cars" in form of mealy mouthed dogma and dodgy statistics. We are not seeing that much evidence in "working on the causes of crime and stopping it" unless banning words like "brainstorming, nitpicking and common sense" and telling some drug-addicted DWD and without insurance twazak - copped with SWAG bag - who has the attention span of the average goldfish to "sit with his arms folded at back of court and we will let you off"
RichardC said:
The BBC ensured that nothing was publicised and any enquiries were farcical whitewashes and a raft of new powers were granted the now named DEFRA - most of these are unnecessary and their execise will lead to further breaches of basic rights.
Dumbing down of TV, few political debate shows of previous deepest nature - and it is not politically correct to grill Tone and his crone.
RichardC said:
the reaction of most citizens is to deny what they hear or see for themselves. It is easier that way. Its our job to raise the profile - If the internet had existed in 1930 probably the holocaust would not have happened !
Analogy is sadly quite correct - Hitler used a prevailing problem to fuel his personal prejudice. Mary and Dick are doing likewise with the motoring issue. (und liebe Tante Mary who lurks here or has little friend who lets her know what is said here - you can deny this till you are blue in face - but that is what you are doing. My family has had tragedies - but we do not hold other drivers or even airline pilots responsible for those losses and my own little escapade.)
deltaf said:
My thoughts are well known on this subject.
Basically i wont lay off on irritating them, getting under their skin, being the most dire pain in the arse theyve ever encountered until they capitulate and
And if they wont voluntarily capitulate to a common sense argument, then forces outside of their miniscule comprehensions will be brought to bear and in ways theyve never even dreamt of in their very worst nightmares.
Oh so well said that man
TripleS said:
Incidentally, I do not believe it is wrong to think in terms of offering alternatives.
Oops: I hope that wasn't in response to my post.
I thought I'd been quite clear that I was all for offering alternatives, merely against the mindset and tactic of "having" to give them.
TripleS said:
Indeed I believe we have to offer a rational set of proposals that can be seen by the public at large as offering an overall improvement in the motoring climate. At present public opinion is almost certainly not on our side
Again with the "have"!
Is "public opinion ... almost certainly not on our side" because the anti-car brigade were offering a "rational set of proposals" on global warming, the environment, road safety and transport infrastructure?
If you think that it is and they were then you are conceding defeat before you have even started.
Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick again?
Now things are hotting up and we're really getting somewhere!
I'm just going to answer a few points at the moment to properly explain some concepts that have arisen.
The abuse of power in relation to the motor car cannot be better illustrated at the present time than the escalation of the activities of the DVLA.
I will be discussing three separate court cases shortly for reasons that will become clear, one of them involving the enforcement of the Road Fund Licence laws and the lengths the DVLA are prepared to go to, or rather that the Government has given them the powers to do so. This is merely a licensing authority with absolutely no comprehension of road safety or accident prevention techniques. The scope of their present powers is utterly outrageous and totally unacceptable, and this is an area that carries frightening possibilities that I will discuss next.
The remark regarding the internet and the holocaust is somewhat prophetic, I think you and I must have a wee psychic link Richard, because one of the most important tools we are going to use to accomplish what we need to is the internet; I believe it is the most powerful force on the planet at the moment.
We MUST do this collectively, that is essential to it's success and I have already thought of several ways to protect the concept and prevent "infiltration". I have to say that I am delighted that some of you have raised this issue and are not naive enough to believe that the powers at be wouldn't try something like that.
I think perhaps I didn't fully explain what I meant by giving the Government an alternative. The alternative is OUR alternative, NOT a compromise. It is not acceptable to anyone just to simply say, "right, get rid of those speed cameras coz we don't like them!"
You cannot do that and remain credible and get public support.
What you can do is say your transport and road enforcement policies are a dismal failure and people are being killed. We have an extremely well thought out, viable alternative; you are our Government and elected representatives of the people. We are the people and you will do as we ask or suffer the consequences. But you have to make your demands clearly much more viable than their policies so that they defy you at their peril. In other words you leave them with no alternative but to comply. But you do it with intellect and legality.
Finally, so that no one has any doubts about this, failure or apathy is not an option. We approach this with total intransigence; it's too vital an issue now and is seriously approaching the point of no return to allow any compromise whatsoever.
I'm just going to answer a few points at the moment to properly explain some concepts that have arisen.
The abuse of power in relation to the motor car cannot be better illustrated at the present time than the escalation of the activities of the DVLA.
I will be discussing three separate court cases shortly for reasons that will become clear, one of them involving the enforcement of the Road Fund Licence laws and the lengths the DVLA are prepared to go to, or rather that the Government has given them the powers to do so. This is merely a licensing authority with absolutely no comprehension of road safety or accident prevention techniques. The scope of their present powers is utterly outrageous and totally unacceptable, and this is an area that carries frightening possibilities that I will discuss next.
The remark regarding the internet and the holocaust is somewhat prophetic, I think you and I must have a wee psychic link Richard, because one of the most important tools we are going to use to accomplish what we need to is the internet; I believe it is the most powerful force on the planet at the moment.
We MUST do this collectively, that is essential to it's success and I have already thought of several ways to protect the concept and prevent "infiltration". I have to say that I am delighted that some of you have raised this issue and are not naive enough to believe that the powers at be wouldn't try something like that.
I think perhaps I didn't fully explain what I meant by giving the Government an alternative. The alternative is OUR alternative, NOT a compromise. It is not acceptable to anyone just to simply say, "right, get rid of those speed cameras coz we don't like them!"
You cannot do that and remain credible and get public support.
What you can do is say your transport and road enforcement policies are a dismal failure and people are being killed. We have an extremely well thought out, viable alternative; you are our Government and elected representatives of the people. We are the people and you will do as we ask or suffer the consequences. But you have to make your demands clearly much more viable than their policies so that they defy you at their peril. In other words you leave them with no alternative but to comply. But you do it with intellect and legality.
Finally, so that no one has any doubts about this, failure or apathy is not an option. We approach this with total intransigence; it's too vital an issue now and is seriously approaching the point of no return to allow any compromise whatsoever.
WildCat said:
And the mad Doc says I sound like Sir Humphry a bit here
Actually my dearest beloved Liebchen - the boys and girls here would be most amused to know that I called you Sir Bumpy as you typed that!
I can call her names - that is my perk!
But you speak for both of us
>> Edited by Mad Moggie on Tuesday 14th September 00:18
IOLAIRE said:
I think perhaps I didn't fully explain what I meant by giving the Government an alternative. The alternative is OUR alternative, NOT a compromise. It is not acceptable to anyone just to simply say, "right, get rid of those speed cameras coz we don't like them!"
You cannot do that and remain credible and get public support.
This is true. I think our guys (other relatives) once said something similar to that "Cumbrian" twazak on his own forum when he refused to answer questions. Bloke enforces speed limits here and does not even know how they came to be so in any case - 7 men in a pub set one of them
IOLAIRE said:
What you can do is say your transport and road enforcement policies are a dismal failure and people are being killed.
It is no secret either that we are very pro-police presence on our roads instead of forests of useless scameras and talivans. These guys can use discretion and offer tips on good practice and improvement techniques instead of fine and points. Though naturally - there will be occasions and cisrcumstances will dictate when this has to be applied ..
We have suggested short term improvement to current L-test and graded assessements with cheaper insurances as prizes and re-tests as booby prizes
in the past... We have even suggested more intelligent advertisement campaigns which get message across in simplest and straightforward terms - without resorting to overly emotive aspects.
Sometimes the simplest unemotional is the most thought provoking and provides more food for thought than the "in your face - let it all hang out wring your hands in utmost grief and despair type."
Most of my patients react less emotively and more prepared to fight the bad news when I give it as it is - gently, but straight and unemotional.
There is always an alternative - and IOLAIRE - take a peek at Paulie Smith's forum on "Improving Driving standards" where you will find IG, myself and a few others debating and offering reasonably viable alternatives
Shall mail you off line some time ...
I'm about ready to go on to the next section of this, but I'm just a wee bit disappointed that there has been absolutely no response either positive or negative from the BiB, 'specially guys like Street who are usually very talkative.
I would really value their opinions, they are obviously important.
It may not be apparent just yet, but if we can pull off what I have in mind, you lads will be a lot happier at your work, believe me.
I would really value their opinions, they are obviously important.
It may not be apparent just yet, but if we can pull off what I have in mind, you lads will be a lot happier at your work, believe me.
IOLAIRE said:
I'm about ready to go on to the next section of this, but I'm just a wee bit disappointed that there has been absolutely no response either positive or negative from the BiB, 'specially guys like Street who are usually very talkative.
I would really value their opinions, they are obviously important.
It may not be apparent just yet, but if we can pull off what I have in mind, you lads will be a lot happier at your work, believe me.
Itd be a whole lot better if we could get people such as Street "on our side" so to speak.
Such people give our cause credibility and you also get the benefit of an insider's view of the law.
Oh, almost forgot....BUMP!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff