Todays Telegraph
Discussion
Following yesterdays anti-camera article in the Telegraph there are two letters in the paper today one is from a Robin Laird apparently a police officer who says speed restrictions haven't changed over the years so they must be right! Don't know what roads he has driven on as they aren't the same ones I have driven on!
The other is from Robery Gilford who is the executive director of Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety whoever they are. He is asking whether we want the same risk of death on the raod as we expect on the railways, and says we need random breath testing, intelligent speed adaption to keep cars within speed limits nd greater use of ANPR to catch multiple offenders and he hops the readers agree! Fat chance if that I suspect.
By the way anyone know how many accidents there are on the trains every year, and how many train drivers?
Also would I be right in assumming that trains go faster than cars and therefore speed doesn't kill?
>>> Edited by Chrisgr31 on Saturday 29th November 09:03
The other is from Robery Gilford who is the executive director of Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety whoever they are. He is asking whether we want the same risk of death on the raod as we expect on the railways, and says we need random breath testing, intelligent speed adaption to keep cars within speed limits nd greater use of ANPR to catch multiple offenders and he hops the readers agree! Fat chance if that I suspect.
By the way anyone know how many accidents there are on the trains every year, and how many train drivers?
Also would I be right in assumming that trains go faster than cars and therefore speed doesn't kill?
>>> Edited by Chrisgr31 on Saturday 29th November 09:03
Chrisgr31 said:
The other is from Robery Gilford who is the executive director of Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety whoever they are.
Just found there website so will settle in for a few hours reading! www.pacts.org.uk
Chrisgr31 said:Any expectation of the safety of any mode of travel is driven by the press. There is no such thing as a totally safe system! So-called, "Idiot-proof" systems ignore the fact that the world is populated by 'system-proof' idiots! Every time I travel, by road (quite a bit), by train (not much), by boat (sometimes, but I used to race 37' yachts), by air (frequently, both long and short-haul) I know there is a risk that I will be involved in an accident and possibly esome a KSI statistic. I do not expect that no-one will ever become a KSI statistic when they travel.
Following yesterdays anti-camera article in the Telegraph there are two letters in the paper today one is from a Robin Laird apparently a police officer who says speed restrictions haven't changed over the years so they must be right! Don't know what roads he has driven on as they aren't the same ones I have driven on!
The other is from Robery Gilford who is the executive director of Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety whoever they are. He is asking whether we want the same risk of death on the raod as we expect on the railways, and says we need random breath testing, intelligent speed adaption to keep cars within speed limits nd greater use of ANPR to catch multiple offenders and he hops the readers agree! Fat chance if that I suspect.
By the way anyone know how many accidents there are on the trains every year, and how many train drivers?
Also would I be right in assumming that trains go faster than cars and therefore speed doesn't kill?
Bah! Humbug!
Streaky
streaky said:
[quote=Chrisgr31]Any expectation of the safety of any mode of travel is driven by the press.
Its also a matter of statistics again. The airline industry will tell you air travel is very safe but that is because they quote kills per miles travelled and planes travel along way. Most aircraft accidents occur on take off or landing. Redo the stats againist no of flights and it doesn't look so good.
If you compare miles travelled, journeys and hours travelled. Bus and Rail travel is consistently at the top and walking, cycling and motorbiking are at the bottom
www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm gives more details.
I very interesting site about how you can misuse statistics.
bluepolarbear said:
www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm gives more details.
A very interesting site about how you can misuse statistics.
I concur 185%, me lad..........
Chrisgr31 said:
Robery Gilford who is the executive director of Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety whoever they are.
Registered charity apparently. Suspect that, like the 'National Viewers and Listeners Association' of Mary Whitehouse fame, they just come up with a name that makes them sound like some sort of official body when in fact they're nothing of the sort.
Also suspect that this Robert Gilford is - like Mary Whitehouse was - another self righteous, self important busy body who thinks that they have a devine right to runs everybody else's lives.
Wonder how much money he makes out of this 'charity' then...
bluepolarbear said:A 100% guaranteed statistic - all aircraft accidents involve contact with the ground.
... Most aircraft accidents occur on take off or landing. ...
One of the acronyms used by air accident investigators is "CFIT" - Controlled Flight Into Terrain. It means that the pilot (or 'George') was flying the aircraft right up until it hit the mountain (or whatever).
One air accident report I read described, "The accident resulted from inappropriate rotor separation combined with failure to maintain altitude". In other words - the propeller came off and the aircraft crashed.
Streaky
grahambell said:
Robery Gilford who is the executive director of Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety whoever they are.
Registered charity apparently. Suspect that, like the 'National Viewers and Listeners Association' of Mary Whitehouse fame, they just come up with a name that makes them sound like some sort of official body when in fact they're nothing of the sort.
With a name that spells out a very convenient and catchy acronym ("PACTS"), they's be unlikely to be a government body. An alarm bell rang the moment I saw the name.
I went to a meeting where Mary Whitehouse was a speaker with the intent of making her look foolish. She came over as a pleasent, sensible woman and her point of view, whilst it conflicted with mine, was quite logical and by no means extreme. She answered questions fully and without spin, she brought up evidence to support her statements and listened to other people's comments. So she'd never had made a politician.
The problem is that newpapers and the media reported what she was supposed to have said, not what she did say. She had every right to do what she did and, whilst I hoped that she would not be successful, I must admit she had given the matter a lot more thought than I had. I liked her and shook her hand at the end of the meeting. When I told her she had not changed my mind she smiled and said, "Not yet."
Don't believe anything you read in the papers.
The problem is that newpapers and the media reported what she was supposed to have said, not what she did say. She had every right to do what she did and, whilst I hoped that she would not be successful, I must admit she had given the matter a lot more thought than I had. I liked her and shook her hand at the end of the meeting. When I told her she had not changed my mind she smiled and said, "Not yet."
Don't believe anything you read in the papers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff