TV prog tonight - Real Story Speedcameras
Discussion
7.30pm: Real Story with Fiona Bruce: Investigation into how motorists are sabotaging roadside cameras in the war against speeding fines.'
I hope the ABD or similar are there to present a balanced view, otherwise it will simply be half an hour of nanny-state propaganda and braying 'Casualty
Reduction Officers'.
I hope the ABD or similar are there to present a balanced view, otherwise it will simply be half an hour of nanny-state propaganda and braying 'Casualty
Reduction Officers'.
simpo two said:
7.30pm: Real Story with Fiona Bruce: Investigation into how motorists are sabotaging roadside cameras in the war against speeding fines.'
I hope the ABD or similar are there to present a balanced view, otherwise it will simply be half an hour of nanny-state propaganda and braying 'Casualty
Reduction Officers'.
The ABD balanced? Mmmmm.
simpo two said:
The ABD balanced? Mmmmm.
I meant 'balanced' in terms of countering the usual crap about how people who drive at 35mph are paedophiles, etc.
And I meant 'balanced' as in some of their policies are just plain silly. They reckon a little bit of alcohol perhaps makes people drive better. At one point they were suggesting that seat belts should be optional.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of both drink driving and seat belts, the fact is that these two causes are lost and no matter how much one argues the point, the law will not get reversed. Why bother?
I want to see a motorists organisation that strikes the right balance between speed, road safety, other transport methods, the environment, etc..
The ABD don't do it for me, I'm afraid.
rospa said:
rospa said:
The ABD balanced? Mmmmm.
I meant 'balanced' in terms of countering the usual crap about how people who drive at 35mph are paedophiles, etc.
And I meant 'balanced' as in some of their policies are just plain silly. They reckon a little bit of alcohol perhaps makes people drive better. At one point they were suggesting that seat belts should be optional.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of both drink driving and seat belts, the fact is that these two causes are lost and no matter how much one argues the point, the law will not get reversed. Why bother?
I want to see a motorists organisation that strikes the right balance between speed, road safety, other transport methods, the environment, etc..
The ABD don't do it for me, I'm afraid.
Maybe you'd be more at home with Transport 2000.
Where did the ABD advocate drinking and belting off? I missed those two.................
mybrainhurts said:
Maybe you'd be more at home with Transport 2000.
Where did the ABD advocate drinking and belting off? I missed those two.................
It did used to be on their website (certainly the drink/drive limit was) - The seat belt was at one of their meetings. I was there and did see it with my own eyes.
I'll ignore the cheap throw-away remark about T2000.
You and I are definitely on the same side, it's just that we need to ensure the balance is right.
If the ABD is such a forward thinking popular organsiation that peope pay realy attnetion to, how come their membership numbers are pretty awful.
>> Edited by rospa on Monday 17th November 17:35
rospa said:
mybrainhurts said:
Maybe you'd be more at home with Transport 2000.
Where did the ABD advocate drinking and belting off? I missed those two.................
It did used to be on their website (certainly the drink/drive limit was) - The seat belt was at one of their meetings. I was there and did see it with my own eyes.
I'll ignore the cheap throw-away remark about T2000.
You and I are definitely on the same side, it's just that we need to ensure the balance is right.
If the ABD is such a forward thinking popular organsiation that peope pay realy attnetion to, how come their membership numbers are pretty awful.
>> Edited by rospa on Monday 17th November 17:35
So the alcohol bit's not policy and the seat belt bit was one voice at a meeting.
Hardly justification for criticism.
An association promoting motoring does just that.
Transport 2000 promotes the other side ie....wants us off the roads
Greenpeace promotes environmental issues ie....wants us off the roads
If you have a passion for wheels, the latter two are not for you, me lad.
Membership is low because of our national disease......apathy.
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 17th November 17:57
Must admit I'm going to sit in the "unpopular" corner with rospa regarding the ABD.
They don't do it for me at all either.
Remember watching a TV prog where an ABD bod (Brian Gregory maybe?) drove down a road I know extremely well. Now there were a lot of Gatso's on this road, and the ABD were using prime time television to argue that this was a clear case of cameras being for revenue in front of anything else.
As I say I know this road and each of the cameras is positioned at the approach to an accident blackspot, and I mean within a few hundred yards maximum, ie close enough to make a difference. At these blackspots excess speed may not be the prime cause of the crashes, if I recall it is misjudgement eg at a junction, but sure as hell the consequences are worse due to the high speeds.
IMHO there could have been better examples and potentially a wasted opportunity.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 17th November 18:02
They don't do it for me at all either.
Remember watching a TV prog where an ABD bod (Brian Gregory maybe?) drove down a road I know extremely well. Now there were a lot of Gatso's on this road, and the ABD were using prime time television to argue that this was a clear case of cameras being for revenue in front of anything else.
As I say I know this road and each of the cameras is positioned at the approach to an accident blackspot, and I mean within a few hundred yards maximum, ie close enough to make a difference. At these blackspots excess speed may not be the prime cause of the crashes, if I recall it is misjudgement eg at a junction, but sure as hell the consequences are worse due to the high speeds.
IMHO there could have been better examples and potentially a wasted opportunity.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 17th November 18:02
mybrainhurts said:
So the alcohol bit's not policy and the seat belt bit was one voice at a meeting.
Hardly justification for criticism.
An association promoting motoring does just that.
Transport 2000 promotes the other side ie....wants us off the roads
Greenpeace promotes environmental issues ie....wants us off the roads
If you have a passion for wheels, the latter two are not for you, me lad.
*I* know that Greenpeace and T2K are both organistions that I would die before I would join.
The problem, as I see it, is that the UK *does* need a motoring organisation that has moderate policies. By having policies like the one above (i.e. a small amount of alcohol might actually help people to drive better) it immediately allows the anti-car brigade to label ABD'ers as "loonies".
The ABD needs policies that appeal to the masses and not just to a small number of PH's.
At the end of the day, I want to see change come about when it comes to transport issues. To do that, requires a consistent, logical and joined-up approach which I don't think we have at the moment.
rospa said:
The ABD needs policies that appeal to the masses and not just to a small number of PH's.
At the end of the day, I want to see change come about when it comes to transport issues. To do that, requires a consistent, logical and joined-up approach which I don't think we have at the moment.
Wouldn't you have been more effective staying in the ABD and arguing that point, rather than leaving and moaning about it here, where you're merely preaching to the converted?
mybrainhurts said:
The ABD needs policies that appeal to the masses and not just to a small number of PH's.
At the end of the day, I want to see change come about when it comes to transport issues. To do that, requires a consistent, logical and joined-up approach which I don't think we have at the moment.
Wouldn't you have been more effective staying in the ABD and arguing that point, rather than leaving and moaning about it here, where you're merely preaching to the converted?
I tried, mate, honestly but it gets to a point where you are banging your head against a brick wall.
How much can one person actually do? In this instance virtually nothing. It needs a change in strategy/direction and I couldn't see that happening.
mybrainhurts said:
OK.................but I reckon things are getting so desperate that anybody onside ought to be supported.
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 17th November 18:31
Indeed. Which makes it even more frustrating. I'm doing what I can now, in my own way, to spread the message.
t I have ever had the displeasure to witness. 
I agree 
Totaly biased crap. The fact that they interviewed a member of "MAD" who could hardly string two words together, let alone make a reasonably thought out argument didn't help. (errr...it's wasn't you delta was it? 
)
Old Dicky Brunstrom had a bit of a nervous tic didn't he? Either that or he was trying to wink to the interviewer in a none too subtle way
) Old Dicky Brunstrom had a bit of a nervous tic didn't he? Either that or he was trying to wink to the interviewer in a none too subtle way
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/2830363.stm[/url]
let em know how you feel people
let em know how you feel people
It's plainly obvious why 3,500 people die each year on UK roads. 1,000 people are questioned in a poll, "do you think speed cameras are a good idea?". 75% say "yes". If we assume that the vast majority of these people actually hold a driving licence then clearly 75% of drivers think that as long as they're doing 30 in a 30, 50 in a 50, etc., then they will not have an accident. No other factor matters.
Are 75% of people born this stupid or have they simply succumbed to Government brainwashing? If they have then the people pushing the Speed Kills mantra must be partially responsible for the number of accidents on the road. The assumption here being that the 75% are responsible for 75% of the accidents. (The other 25% might actually be thinking more about ALL factors of their driving and becoming involved in less than 25% of accidents of course so 75% for the pro-camera cretins seems fair.)
And then Brunstrom had tha audacity to talk about driver education!!? Where's the driver education on his patch? By itself, the sheer number of tickets that he's dishing out make 'educating' all of those drivers logistically impossible.
I despair.
Are 75% of people born this stupid or have they simply succumbed to Government brainwashing? If they have then the people pushing the Speed Kills mantra must be partially responsible for the number of accidents on the road. The assumption here being that the 75% are responsible for 75% of the accidents. (The other 25% might actually be thinking more about ALL factors of their driving and becoming involved in less than 25% of accidents of course so 75% for the pro-camera cretins seems fair.)
And then Brunstrom had tha audacity to talk about driver education!!? Where's the driver education on his patch? By itself, the sheer number of tickets that he's dishing out make 'educating' all of those drivers logistically impossible.
I despair.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff