RE: ABD call for Clarity
Monday 1st December 2003
ABD call for Clarity
Stop the spin - let's have useful stats about accident blackspots say ABD
The Association of British Drivers is calling for the evidence supporting camera placements to be made more transparent. Whilst recognising that some cameras are placed in genuine accident blackspots they're questioning the stats that currently support some installations.
The ABD calls is calling on Transport Secretary Alistair Darling to act urgently to restore public confidence in the system. They want Darling to compel camera partnerships and local authorities outside of partnerships to reveal the following statistics within three months:
1. Accident statistics for three years prior to and following installation for each and every camera.
2. Statistics must separate fatalities from injuries - currently the term KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) is popularly used. This can for example allow a camera to be installed following some half-dozen injuries such as minor whiplash injuries, or a broken toe, which are classed as 'Serious Injuries'. If two or three fatal accidents occur after installation it can nevertheless be claimed that 'KSI' accidents have been reduced.
3. To show clearly all causation factors involved in every accident. Obviously the speed and whether it was excessive, but also whether the driver was drunk, drugged, on the telephone, in a stolen car etc. Only in places where excessive speed above the speed limit was the prime cause of accidents should cameras be deployed.
4. To show clearly what other changes were made in the area during the measured period. Many 'successful' cameras were installed together with road engineering measures, this is not evidence that a camera has reduced accidents.
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said: "If Alastair Darling wants the public to inform him about speed cameras, he needs to ensure that the public are informed of the truth with no masking of the facts. The ABD trusts that he will seize upon this opportunity to ensure the truth is revealed so that the UK speed camera policy can be turned into a genuine 'safety camera' policy' where cameras are used to save lives. "
ABD Road Safety Spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie said: "A huge industry has built up around speed cameras. When so may jobs depend upon a revenue stream coming in it can understandably be tempting to mask the truth about a poorly performing camera which is nonetheless bring in finances. The government needs to look long term at whether it is advisable to continue with such financial incentive. In the short term it must ensure total transparency where accident statistics are concerned ."
Link : www.abd.org.uk
Discussion
Those nice, nice people at Gwent Police Force have a Freedom Of Information Project happening at the moment whereby some nice chap in their HQ (his name's Matthew) tries to find out for you any information that you want. He's currently finding out some accident data for some highly questionable scamera sites in the area for me.
A smashing bloke doing a smashing job, perhaps you could look at the Force website in your area and see if they are doing the same 'project'.
>> Edited by wanty1974 on Monday 1st December 14:24
A smashing bloke doing a smashing job, perhaps you could look at the Force website in your area and see if they are doing the same 'project'.
>> Edited by wanty1974 on Monday 1st December 14:24
Hmmm - while I understand what lies behind the ABD's position and totally support the drive to have speed cameras ONLY where they make a real contribution to road safety i.e. at known blackspots I do wonder whether we are appraoching the problem from the right end.
In this country we already have far too many pointless jobs associated with interfering in our lives. The ABD's request just means even more bureaucrats ferreting around producing information which is useless UNLESS it results in an improved state of affairs.
While the recent press coverage is belated it is welcome and perhaps the self important clowns who masquerade as government (both central and local) in this country will begin to get the message that we have had enough. Instead of adding to the bureaucratic burden lets reduce it drastically. Let's also have laws (and speed limits) which the majority of the public can respect as sensible and for which enforcement is therefore supported.
In this country we already have far too many pointless jobs associated with interfering in our lives. The ABD's request just means even more bureaucrats ferreting around producing information which is useless UNLESS it results in an improved state of affairs.
While the recent press coverage is belated it is welcome and perhaps the self important clowns who masquerade as government (both central and local) in this country will begin to get the message that we have had enough. Instead of adding to the bureaucratic burden lets reduce it drastically. Let's also have laws (and speed limits) which the majority of the public can respect as sensible and for which enforcement is therefore supported.
joe c said:
Anyone know where I can find any stats on our roads?
Ho Joe,
Try this from the International Road Traffic Accident Database. Enjoy......
www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad//english/we2.html
This is really the fundamental underlying problem with the ABD. They seem to be so easily sidetracked into a debate which is totally spurious. The reality is that speed cameras have not saved 1 life since they were installed. If they have not saved a life then they are a totally useless device and should be scrapped. There is no need to indulge in a debate about whether they are placed in blackspots or not. It would be more useful to counter the government spin by demanding that Ken livingstone be put on trial for Murdering 900 people annually by failing to provide and indeed deliberately causing a meltdown of the inner London road transport system. It would have been more useful to make copy from the fact that the former Lib dem haed vegetabalist is a pervert. But no, give Mark Macarthur Christie a quick stir and he will come out with a torrent of reasoned drivel which always accepts that the very unreasonable Government has a point. What a tosser.
nonegreen said:
This is really the fundamental underlying problem with the ABD. They seem to be so easily sidetracked into a debate which is totally spurious. The reality is that speed cameras have not saved 1 life since they were installed. If they have not saved a life then they are a totally useless device and should be scrapped. There is no need to indulge in a debate about whether they are placed in blackspots or not. It would be more useful to counter the government spin by demanding that Ken livingstone be put on trial for Murdering 900 people annually by failing to provide and indeed deliberately causing a meltdown of the inner London road transport system. It would have been more useful to make copy from the fact that the former Lib dem haed vegetabalist is a pervert. But no, give Mark Macarthur Christie a quick stir and he will come out with a torrent of reasoned drivel which always accepts that the very unreasonable Government has a point. What a tosser.
Sorry nonegreen, but I can't agree with you.
Extremists will always be marginalised by the establishment.
The only way the ABD is going to make any difference is by continuing with their current strategy of coming out with reasonable, printable, soundbite-friendly counter points just like this one.
I'm convinced that this strategy has contributed to the tide starting to turn in the media. The ABD have been spoon-feeding the media with material they can use and I think it is starting to pay off.
Nonegreen wrote:
"But no, give Mark Macarthur Christie a quick stir and he will come out with a torrent of reasoned drivel which always accepts that the very unreasonable Government has a point. What a tosser."
Jeez, a biiiig thanks Nonegreen. Here I am, trying to run a business and do as much for the ABD as I can (and, by the way, your right to drive too) and you accuse me of "drivel" and being a "tosser".
Well, I may be guilty of the second - but don't judge 'til you've met me, eh? But "drivel" - I don't think so.
You're pissed off with me now, aren't you? That's because I've criticised you. No one likes being criticised and called a twat - particularly a politician. So sometimes you have to sing their tune to get to sing in their choir. That's how political lobbying works - I do it for a living and, voluntarily for the ABD. I certainly don't claim always to get it right, or even be a lot of use, but I'll keep fighting the fools trying to get us off the road as long as I can.
When you spend 72 hours a week trying to make your own business work - and another 20 on the ABD they you can start slinging shit at me. Until then, keep your vitriol for the prats trying to legislate, price and restrict you off the road. 'Friendly' fire we don't need.
Mark
(and it's McArthur, not MacArthur)
"But no, give Mark Macarthur Christie a quick stir and he will come out with a torrent of reasoned drivel which always accepts that the very unreasonable Government has a point. What a tosser."
Jeez, a biiiig thanks Nonegreen. Here I am, trying to run a business and do as much for the ABD as I can (and, by the way, your right to drive too) and you accuse me of "drivel" and being a "tosser".
Well, I may be guilty of the second - but don't judge 'til you've met me, eh? But "drivel" - I don't think so.
You're pissed off with me now, aren't you? That's because I've criticised you. No one likes being criticised and called a twat - particularly a politician. So sometimes you have to sing their tune to get to sing in their choir. That's how political lobbying works - I do it for a living and, voluntarily for the ABD. I certainly don't claim always to get it right, or even be a lot of use, but I'll keep fighting the fools trying to get us off the road as long as I can.
When you spend 72 hours a week trying to make your own business work - and another 20 on the ABD they you can start slinging shit at me. Until then, keep your vitriol for the prats trying to legislate, price and restrict you off the road. 'Friendly' fire we don't need.
Mark
(and it's McArthur, not MacArthur)
[quote]Nonegreen wrote:
"But no, give Mark Macarthur Christie a quick stir and he will come out with a torrent of reasoned drivel which always accepts that the very unreasonable Government has a point. What a tosser."
Jeez, a biiiig thanks Nonegreen. Here I am, trying to run a business and do as much for the ABD as I can (and, by the way, your right to drive too) and you accuse me of "drivel" and being a "tosser".
Well, I may be guilty of the second - but don't judge 'til you've met me, eh? But "drivel" - I don't think so.
You're pissed off with me now, aren't you? That's because I've criticised you. No one likes being criticised and called a twat - particularly a politician. So sometimes you have to sing their tune to get to sing in their choir. That's how political lobbying works - I do it for a living and, voluntarily for the ABD. I certainly don't claim always to get it right, or even be a lot of use, but I'll keep fighting the fools trying to get us off the road as long as I can.
When you spend 72 hours a week trying to make your own business work - and another 20 on the ABD they you can start slinging shit at me. Until then, keep your vitriol for the prats trying to legislate, price and restrict you off the road. 'Friendly' fire we don't need.
Mark
(and it's McArthur, not MacArthur)[/quote]
Couldnt' resist posting this..
While I don't always agree with Marks press and letters he sends to various journals/press I read in my day to day job (Road Safety Researcher). I do believe he has road safety at mind at the crux of his arguments - despite the fact I think some of his arguments are just a knee jerk backlash against the "we hate motorists" press that seems to prevalent in society at the moment.
People like nonegreen with a totally right wing reaction aren't helping anybody in this field.. meanwhile of course while we're debating this, approximately 10 people died yesterday on our roads, and 10 people will (possibly) die tomorrow.
For anyone who thinks the bottom level has been reached considering RTA's and we'll never get better, I can only say this - go into dealing with the bereaved families of these people and you'll realise we can do better - just we aren't making any serious inroads at the moment.
"But no, give Mark Macarthur Christie a quick stir and he will come out with a torrent of reasoned drivel which always accepts that the very unreasonable Government has a point. What a tosser."
Jeez, a biiiig thanks Nonegreen. Here I am, trying to run a business and do as much for the ABD as I can (and, by the way, your right to drive too) and you accuse me of "drivel" and being a "tosser".
Well, I may be guilty of the second - but don't judge 'til you've met me, eh? But "drivel" - I don't think so.
You're pissed off with me now, aren't you? That's because I've criticised you. No one likes being criticised and called a twat - particularly a politician. So sometimes you have to sing their tune to get to sing in their choir. That's how political lobbying works - I do it for a living and, voluntarily for the ABD. I certainly don't claim always to get it right, or even be a lot of use, but I'll keep fighting the fools trying to get us off the road as long as I can.
When you spend 72 hours a week trying to make your own business work - and another 20 on the ABD they you can start slinging shit at me. Until then, keep your vitriol for the prats trying to legislate, price and restrict you off the road. 'Friendly' fire we don't need.
Mark
(and it's McArthur, not MacArthur)[/quote]
Couldnt' resist posting this..
While I don't always agree with Marks press and letters he sends to various journals/press I read in my day to day job (Road Safety Researcher). I do believe he has road safety at mind at the crux of his arguments - despite the fact I think some of his arguments are just a knee jerk backlash against the "we hate motorists" press that seems to prevalent in society at the moment.
People like nonegreen with a totally right wing reaction aren't helping anybody in this field.. meanwhile of course while we're debating this, approximately 10 people died yesterday on our roads, and 10 people will (possibly) die tomorrow.
For anyone who thinks the bottom level has been reached considering RTA's and we'll never get better, I can only say this - go into dealing with the bereaved families of these people and you'll realise we can do better - just we aren't making any serious inroads at the moment.
Oh dear,
Mark, I apologise for spelling your name wrong, that is unforgiveable. Presumably it is your choice to spend huge ammounts of time making a living and then more time working for the ABD. If so then you can hardly complain about it. I am not pissed off by anything you said about my criticism. On the contrary at least I got a rise out of you.
I was a founder member of the ABD before you got involved. I left because it became pretty clear that despite having a good leader in Brian Gregory it was infiltrated almost from day one by people who accept stupidity as part of the game. I was not interested in getting involved in debates about whether the motorway speed limit should be 80 or 85 mph when clearly most motorways should have no limit. Compromise is for the talentless, thats why Churchill was PM during WW2.
The kind of ridicule that has been heaped on the pathetic department of transport by 1 man (safespeed) has been 1000 times more effective in 12 months that the combined efforts of the ABD in the last 10 years. So please do not claim credit for his achievements. I am firmly of the opinion that the ABD is actually a hindrance rather than a help and you in particular with your moderation and consideration are the worst possible spokesman. I really am sorry to have to say it but I believe it to be true.
It is not good practice to accept the rights of idiots to defend bad practice. People like Begg, Brunstrom, Livingstone etc are evil killers and should be described as such. When was the last time the ABD went on the radio and asked the searching questions? Like, why are there at least 500 extra deaths per year allowed in London alone due to speed humps just to satisfy a lunatic Mayor? Or, why are increases in deaths as a result of so called safety camera partneships being allowed to continue? The answer is never. The ABD continues to plod along with "Ooh well we vote tory and we support the queen and we would like to go a bit quicker on the motoway. We do understand the good work that the government are doing to reduce deaths though and we will never organise a protest or anything."
Tell me when the next big sporting event blockade is Mark, tell what to put on my banner and I will be there and I will be prepared to be arrested. Tell me when we are going to flour bomb Michael Meacher or David Begg during the recording of the next bit of anti car propaganda and I will be there too. Until then the less you say, probably the better.
Kurgis, If you think I a right wing you have a great deal to learn.
Mark, I apologise for spelling your name wrong, that is unforgiveable. Presumably it is your choice to spend huge ammounts of time making a living and then more time working for the ABD. If so then you can hardly complain about it. I am not pissed off by anything you said about my criticism. On the contrary at least I got a rise out of you.
I was a founder member of the ABD before you got involved. I left because it became pretty clear that despite having a good leader in Brian Gregory it was infiltrated almost from day one by people who accept stupidity as part of the game. I was not interested in getting involved in debates about whether the motorway speed limit should be 80 or 85 mph when clearly most motorways should have no limit. Compromise is for the talentless, thats why Churchill was PM during WW2.
The kind of ridicule that has been heaped on the pathetic department of transport by 1 man (safespeed) has been 1000 times more effective in 12 months that the combined efforts of the ABD in the last 10 years. So please do not claim credit for his achievements. I am firmly of the opinion that the ABD is actually a hindrance rather than a help and you in particular with your moderation and consideration are the worst possible spokesman. I really am sorry to have to say it but I believe it to be true.
It is not good practice to accept the rights of idiots to defend bad practice. People like Begg, Brunstrom, Livingstone etc are evil killers and should be described as such. When was the last time the ABD went on the radio and asked the searching questions? Like, why are there at least 500 extra deaths per year allowed in London alone due to speed humps just to satisfy a lunatic Mayor? Or, why are increases in deaths as a result of so called safety camera partneships being allowed to continue? The answer is never. The ABD continues to plod along with "Ooh well we vote tory and we support the queen and we would like to go a bit quicker on the motoway. We do understand the good work that the government are doing to reduce deaths though and we will never organise a protest or anything."
Tell me when the next big sporting event blockade is Mark, tell what to put on my banner and I will be there and I will be prepared to be arrested. Tell me when we are going to flour bomb Michael Meacher or David Begg during the recording of the next bit of anti car propaganda and I will be there too. Until then the less you say, probably the better.
Kurgis, If you think I a right wing you have a great deal to learn.
Mark, Nonegreen, I don't know you both, but I am saddened by your seemingly hostile reaction to each other, we are after all on the same side.
I can see that you are BOTH passionate about what you believe and probably believe in the same end result you wish to see.
I can see sometimes, nonegreen, that "going for them Head on" may not be the best thing to do when you have to carry public opinion with you, and win the arguement.
I can also see Mark, that sometimes if you "procrastinate and debate for too long," then you're not going to get very far. Your opponents will let you do THAT for ever!
The truth is that we need a good balance of both. Steady arguement coupled with displays of Public resentment at the situation. In truth, we need you both!
The problem on motorways is: we have been frozen in time (since 1967 was it?)at 70mph, while other countries like germany have progressed along with car performance. German driving skills have grown slowly with it. I don't think that ANY UK Government is going to suddenly release the brakes to an unlimited motorway speed, so an "Head on" approach on it's own is not going to work!
The best we can hope for is gradual release of the max speed over a few years.
To achieve this we need BOTH your passions and skills, but let's keep it friendly, Hey!
I can see that you are BOTH passionate about what you believe and probably believe in the same end result you wish to see.
I can see sometimes, nonegreen, that "going for them Head on" may not be the best thing to do when you have to carry public opinion with you, and win the arguement.
I can also see Mark, that sometimes if you "procrastinate and debate for too long," then you're not going to get very far. Your opponents will let you do THAT for ever!
The truth is that we need a good balance of both. Steady arguement coupled with displays of Public resentment at the situation. In truth, we need you both!
The problem on motorways is: we have been frozen in time (since 1967 was it?)at 70mph, while other countries like germany have progressed along with car performance. German driving skills have grown slowly with it. I don't think that ANY UK Government is going to suddenly release the brakes to an unlimited motorway speed, so an "Head on" approach on it's own is not going to work!
The best we can hope for is gradual release of the max speed over a few years.
To achieve this we need BOTH your passions and skills, but let's keep it friendly, Hey!
8pack - absolutely fair comment.
A colleague happened to mention Nonegreen's post and I read it after (a) the week from hell where I'd been working 16 hour days because of ABD committments and (b) the sharp end of a bottle of red.
Moral of the story - don't post pissed.
Nonegreen - if you're reading this - apologies for sounding off at you. Just getting called a few names shouldn't be reason to rip someone's head off...
Mark
A colleague happened to mention Nonegreen's post and I read it after (a) the week from hell where I'd been working 16 hour days because of ABD committments and (b) the sharp end of a bottle of red.
Moral of the story - don't post pissed.
Nonegreen - if you're reading this - apologies for sounding off at you. Just getting called a few names shouldn't be reason to rip someone's head off...
Mark
Kurgis said:
People like nonegreen with a totally right wing reaction aren't helping anybody in this field.. meanwhile of course while we're debating this, approximately 10 people died yesterday on our roads, and 10 people will (possibly) die tomorrow.
Really? sounds like tomorrow and yesterday are bad days to be on the road, think i will go for a hoon today instead if there are not going to be any deaths
>> Edited by hedders on Sunday 23 May 01:46
While the cause wouldn't survive five seconds if everyone was a frothing at the mouth rABiD loony, the reason why we are still losing the "debate" is that the balance is too skewed towards reason.
Are the letters pages, public fora, debate in general, full of fact filled and reasoned argument from the "Speed Kills", Think Of The Children" (you Speedophiles) crowd? Er, that would be a no then.
When did you last see emblazoned across the back of a bus:
"Speed Kills" (or it might be "Safety Cameras Slaughter" - the jury's still out on that one!) ?
No, what you see is lots of emotion and anger backed up with the odd (very odd) "fact" to justify it. "Facts" such as the faster you go, the more destructive the force, and there's no point in going faster as you can never get more than 1,800 cars past a point regardless of how much you speed up. Strange that the same arguments are never trotted out with respect to trains.
I've been banned three times by the BBC Messageboards for upsetting people with the truth (admittedly put forward forcefully and relentlessly). Their arguments? Well, they started off with things like:
And:
And even:
And went downhill from there.
Whilst you might expect no more from Aunty Beeb, I've also been banned from the Honest John Backroom "motorists" forum because I would insist on countering any (and every) piece of repeatedly reguritated anti-motorist clap-trap they insist on giving a "fair" hearing".
One poster there, if you took the enormous effort of changing his email address to a url, proved to be a PR for a consultancy group which specialised in spending loadsa motorists taxes on anti-motoring "improvments" to the highways. But he, of course, deserved a "fair", uninterrupted hearing of his "reasoned" contribution to the "debate".
Sorry, when you are being mugged, the natural reaction isn't to invite your attacker home for tea and a cozy chat about how they could mug others in your shoes more efficiently, it's to lash out.
If you aren't lashing out, then you either don't thing you are being mugged, or your natural reaction to being mugged is to lie down and let the mugger walk all over you, while advising on the size of boot you prefer to be kicked in the teeth with, and which pocket you would prefer to be emptied last.
Is it any wonder then that we get mugged, kicked in the teeth, and have our pockets emptied?
While those that demonstrate that they will kick up a fuss if they don't get their way do get their way!
Oh, and I've even been banned by the ABD.
For daring to find a lost link to an article about rail to road conversion.
Says it all!
Are the letters pages, public fora, debate in general, full of fact filled and reasoned argument from the "Speed Kills", Think Of The Children" (you Speedophiles) crowd? Er, that would be a no then.
When did you last see emblazoned across the back of a bus:
"Speed Kills" (or it might be "Safety Cameras Slaughter" - the jury's still out on that one!) ?
No, what you see is lots of emotion and anger backed up with the odd (very odd) "fact" to justify it. "Facts" such as the faster you go, the more destructive the force, and there's no point in going faster as you can never get more than 1,800 cars past a point regardless of how much you speed up. Strange that the same arguments are never trotted out with respect to trains.
I've been banned three times by the BBC Messageboards for upsetting people with the truth (admittedly put forward forcefully and relentlessly). Their arguments? Well, they started off with things like:
BBC Post said:
How deeply offensive Mr Bogbrush’s postings are. I have looked past his insults and examined some of the claims in his ramblings and I believe that virtually everything he says is untrue. I can only say that thank goodness for the road features that he criticises in a most bigoted fashion. They are needed to prevent people like him from killing innocent pedestrians and road users. Unfortunately British society has long allowed people like him to make such claims under the guise of freedom of speech. What kind of low self esteem causes people to behave in this way? Dear BBC, can you restore balance to this forum by not allowing so many postings from one person? Four of the last six postings were Mr Bogbrush’s and some of them are so long that they are a pain to read.
And:
BBC Post said:
Bogush you paint a picture of a driver who disregards the speed limits unless he thinks he'll be caught, drives when in no fit state, are you describing yourself? If so then please give your license up ... you are a menace to society!
And even:
BBC Post said:
I thought we abandonned capital punishment 40 years ago. Not according to Bogush, if a pedestrian or a cyclist or a child makes a mistake then it's OK if cars instantly kill them - it's their fault! What a horrid society, what a horrid man!
And went downhill from there.
Whilst you might expect no more from Aunty Beeb, I've also been banned from the Honest John Backroom "motorists" forum because I would insist on countering any (and every) piece of repeatedly reguritated anti-motorist clap-trap they insist on giving a "fair" hearing".
One poster there, if you took the enormous effort of changing his email address to a url, proved to be a PR for a consultancy group which specialised in spending loadsa motorists taxes on anti-motoring "improvments" to the highways. But he, of course, deserved a "fair", uninterrupted hearing of his "reasoned" contribution to the "debate".
Sorry, when you are being mugged, the natural reaction isn't to invite your attacker home for tea and a cozy chat about how they could mug others in your shoes more efficiently, it's to lash out.
If you aren't lashing out, then you either don't thing you are being mugged, or your natural reaction to being mugged is to lie down and let the mugger walk all over you, while advising on the size of boot you prefer to be kicked in the teeth with, and which pocket you would prefer to be emptied last.
Is it any wonder then that we get mugged, kicked in the teeth, and have our pockets emptied?
While those that demonstrate that they will kick up a fuss if they don't get their way do get their way!
Oh, and I've even been banned by the ABD.
For daring to find a lost link to an article about rail to road conversion.
Says it all!
MMC said:
8pack - absolutely fair comment.
A colleague happened to mention Nonegreen's post and I read it after (a) the week from hell where I'd been working 16 hour days because of ABD committments and (b) the sharp end of a bottle of red.
Moral of the story - don't post pissed.
Nonegreen - if you're reading this - apologies for sounding off at you. Just getting called a few names shouldn't be reason to rip someone's head off...
Mark
Mark, if it works for you and you achieve the goal then I have done my bit. Just remember when Blair and Howard are at the dispatch box they do not give any credit to the other they let rip. I just think the ABD should adopt the dame aproach, after all this is politics not road safety.
8pack, I have been here a long time I have never fallen out with anyone and I never give up on my opponents in argument, life is too short to bear grudges. Kurgis knows that....
Cheers! Chaps! 
Now let's: go get 'em!nonegreen said:
This is really the fundamental underlying problem with the ABD. They seem to be so easily sidetracked into a debate which is totally spurious. The reality is that speed cameras have not saved 1 life since they were installed. If they have not saved a life then they are a totally useless device and should be scrapped. There is no need to indulge in a debate about whether they are placed in blackspots or not. It would be more useful to counter the government spin by demanding that Ken livingstone be put on trial for Murdering 900 people annually by failing to provide and indeed deliberately causing a meltdown of the inner London road transport system. It would have been more useful to make copy from the fact that the former Lib dem haed vegetabalist is a pervert. But no, give Mark Macarthur Christie a quick stir and he will come out with a torrent of reasoned drivel which always accepts that the very unreasonable Government has a point. What a tosser.
Actually there is very much a need to indulge in reasoned debate. Jumping up and down and shouting that all cameras should be scrapped isn't going to get anybody anywhere, and 'nonegreen' is living in cloud cockoo land if he/she thinks it is. Suggesting that Red Ken murders 900 people a year would just get the suggestor put in the same pigeonhole as the looney brigade. The point is that it is the anti-car brigade who are the fanatics fond of emotional blackmail in an attempt to whip up hysteria against cars. We car drivers have to be seen to be above such nonsense, and the ABD seems to me to be leading the way. The government's speed camera con is falling apart at the seams, and the ABD's constant exposure of their lies is a big factor in this.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff