RE: Speeding varies by sex: report
Wednesday 22nd November 2006
How do YOU respond?Men and women respond differently to speed cameras, according to a new academic report, released yesterday. But the report was instantly criticised by road safety campaign Safe Speed for conflating the issues of road safety and speed cameras, which the campaign argues are different questions. "Attitudes to road safety and safe driving are not the same as attitudes to speed limit enforcement", said the campaign.
Speeding varies by sex: report
Safety campaign finds report misses the point
How do YOU respond?
A new research paper by Dr. Claire Corbett, Brunel University, has found that men and women respond differently to speed cameras. The paper entitled Gender differences in responses to speed cameras: typology findings and implications for road safety, purports to show that women have more favourable views towards cameras and comply with them more than men, according to Brunel.
Corbett’s earlier research in the mid-1990s showed how drivers responded to speed cameras in one of several ways, and how the typology of responses produced was linked with drivers’ characteristics. The recent study revisited these findings in terms of gender characteristics. "When you consider that four out of ten licensed drivers in England and Wales are women, it seems essential that gender should be included in all studies of driving behaviour," said Corbett.
Acknowledging that women do not drive uniformly, according to Corbett her research showed that:
- Significantly more women than men – 56 per cent compared to 43 per cent – said they complied with speed cameras
- Women were less likely to manipulate speed cameras by slowing down before the camera and accelerating away. 39 per cent of men did this compared to 25 per cent of women
- 24 per cent of women wanted to see more speed cameras in the areas where they lived compared to 13 per cent of men
- 84 per cent of women think cameras make a positive difference to accident reduction compared to 75 per cent of men
- Significantly fewer women than men – 36 per cent compared to 52 per cent - believed that the speed cameras’ purpose is to make easy money from drivers.
"Our findings and those of other research together show women tend to drive and think more safely about driving and road safety matters than men," said Corbett. It is therefore important that the views of both sexes inform any decision by policymakers to change speed limits or to adjust speed enforcement policy. There seems often to be an assumption of a general consensus of all drivers on these matters."
To illustrate this, the report’s review of a sample of 300 items from national UK newspapers referencing both ‘speed limits’ and ‘drivers’ found only 11 per cent distinguished between the sexes in reporting drivers’ wishes and views on speed and speed limits.
The report also critiques the use of speed awareness courses mainly for those drivers caught just over the prescribed limit. "Since male drivers tend to dominate the higher margins of excess speed and engage more often than women in risky behaviours on the roads, such drivers can miss out on the educational opportunity offered by these programmes," said Corbett. "After all, it is male attitudes to speed and its control that present the biggest challenge."
The paper, written by Dr. Claire Corbett of Brunel University and Dr. Isabela Caramlau, University of Warwick, was published in Criminology and Criminal Justice: An International Journal, volume 6(4) in November 2006. We know neither how the research was carried out nor how many people were surveyed.
Safe Speed response
Responding to the report, Safe Speed pointed that: "attitudes to road safety and safe driving are not the same as attitudes to speed limit enforcement."
The campaign argued that: "the obsessive enforcement of speed limits has not improved road safety. This is why the Safe Speed campaign exists. We believe that road safety is highly dependent on the skills and attitudes of road users, with only one in 20 crashes involving a vehicle exceeding a speed limit we need to look elsewhere for road safety improvements."
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "It is ludicrous to equate attitudes to speed enforcement with attitudes to road safety, yet this is the foundation of the absurd claims made by Claire Corbett. I am angry because this sort of nonsense will misinform the road safety debate and ultimately cost lives. Dr Corbett is commenting on the law and its enforcement without considering the possibility that legal behaviour and safe behaviour are not the same.
"Everyone knows that it is important that people don't 'drive too fast', but the speed limit is only a proxy for the desired safe behaviour. It plays a very minor role in drivers' risk management. Drivers who prefer the proxy measure to setting a safe speed according to the conditions are inherently dangerous. Yet current policy is making many more of these drivers. No wonder road deaths haven't fallen as expected in the speed camera era.
Smith described the report's call for policymakers to consider "the views of both sexes" when considering speed limits and speed enforcement policy as an "extraordinary error". He said: "We must have road safety policies which are based on sound evidence and analysis, not uninformed opinion. Sound evidence and analysis will not be perceived differently by suitably qualified people whatever their sex.
"People seem to think the Safe Speed campaign is about the 'right to speed'.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Safe Speed campaign demands road safety policies that are based on sound evidence. Basic examination of road safety data soon highlights that the system is not working near the threshold where marginal difference in speed limit compliance could be expected to show a road safety benefit.
"For example, with five per cent of crashes involving a speeding vehicle out of about 200,000 injury crashes in a year, we have about 10,000 crashes involving speeding each year amongst 32 million licensed drivers. A simple division reveals that the average driver goes 3,200 years before he causes a crash involving speeding. Yet Department for Transport figures tell us that speeding is endemic with around 60 per cent of vehicles speeding on most road types.
"They have yet to explain how it is that speeding is so dramatically under-represented in the crash statistics."
Discussion
Getting a bit sick of hearing 'SafeSpeed' denegrate every aspect of anything to do with speed limit enforcement. Starting to sound like one of those crazy 'Street Preachers'.... the people that matter aren't listening to you mate - because they dont want to. Every other day theres an article promoting SafeSpeed on here with the same old tosh..... its boring and its pointless.
Yes, as an enthusiastic driver, I sometimes break the speed limit. I do that at risk from being caught by one of the speed cameras. I accept that. It would be nice if they didnt exist. However, the truth of the matter is that the majority of drivers that speed on British roads aren't the kind of drivers that Pistonheads appeals to - they are the morons that speed in unacceptable conditions, drive beyond their abilities and in access of their vehicles safe limits, have no regard for other road users and innocent bystanders, are show offs and idiots. I would love to have speed cameras on the roads local to where I live, because 99% of the people that use these roads seem to think the speed limit only applies to other road users, and not them.
The article shows that Women differ from Men in their approach to speed camera enforement. Well, not at all surprised at that. Men are on the most part stupid arses that will argue any point they dont agree with instead of accepting the truth. Never seen a war started by a woman yet. You dont need a doctorate to know that women are safer, more considerate drivers, more likely to obey the law, and less likely to be involved in an accident - way less likely to be involved in one that involves speed. On the most part, women that are involved in accidents involving speed are usually the innocent passengers killed by some spotty toss pot of a youth that thinks HE is a great driver andd is showing off....
Whenever my wife drives anywhere I never feel the need to warn her about upcoming speed cameras or possible places where the police actively enforce the law with speed traps. I never need to tell her to slow down. We get where we are going safely and without incedent, and she (unlike me) has never been involved in any kind of serious accident or needed to make an insurance claim. She is a calm driver that is considerate of other road users.
As long as she can find a parking space that she can drive straight into then shes happy.....
Yes, as an enthusiastic driver, I sometimes break the speed limit. I do that at risk from being caught by one of the speed cameras. I accept that. It would be nice if they didnt exist. However, the truth of the matter is that the majority of drivers that speed on British roads aren't the kind of drivers that Pistonheads appeals to - they are the morons that speed in unacceptable conditions, drive beyond their abilities and in access of their vehicles safe limits, have no regard for other road users and innocent bystanders, are show offs and idiots. I would love to have speed cameras on the roads local to where I live, because 99% of the people that use these roads seem to think the speed limit only applies to other road users, and not them.
The article shows that Women differ from Men in their approach to speed camera enforement. Well, not at all surprised at that. Men are on the most part stupid arses that will argue any point they dont agree with instead of accepting the truth. Never seen a war started by a woman yet. You dont need a doctorate to know that women are safer, more considerate drivers, more likely to obey the law, and less likely to be involved in an accident - way less likely to be involved in one that involves speed. On the most part, women that are involved in accidents involving speed are usually the innocent passengers killed by some spotty toss pot of a youth that thinks HE is a great driver andd is showing off....
Whenever my wife drives anywhere I never feel the need to warn her about upcoming speed cameras or possible places where the police actively enforce the law with speed traps. I never need to tell her to slow down. We get where we are going safely and without incedent, and she (unlike me) has never been involved in any kind of serious accident or needed to make an insurance claim. She is a calm driver that is considerate of other road users.
As long as she can find a parking space that she can drive straight into then shes happy.....
tony*t3 said:
Getting a bit sick of hearing 'SafeSpeed' denegrate every aspect of anything to do with speed limit enforcement. Starting to sound like one of those crazy 'Street Preachers'.... the people that matter aren't listening to you mate - because they dont want to. Every other day theres an article promoting SafeSpeed on here with the same old tosh..... its boring and its pointless.
Yes, as an enthusiastic driver, I sometimes break the speed limit. I do that at risk from being caught by one of the speed cameras. I accept that. It would be nice if they didnt exist. However, the truth of the matter is that the majority of drivers that speed on British roads aren't the kind of drivers that Pistonheads appeals to - they are the morons that speed in unacceptable conditions, drive beyond their abilities and in access of their vehicles safe limits, have no regard for other road users and innocent bystanders, are show offs and idiots. I would love to have speed cameras on the roads local to where I live, because 99% of the people that use these roads seem to think the speed limit only applies to other road users, and not them.
The article shows that Women differ from Men in their approach to speed camera enforement. Well, not at all surprised at that. Men are on the most part stupid arses that will argue any point they dont agree with instead of accepting the truth. Never seen a war started by a woman yet. You dont need a doctorate to know that women are safer, more considerate drivers, more likely to obey the law, and less likely to be involved in an accident - way less likely to be involved in one that involves speed. On the most part, women that are involved in accidents involving speed are usually the innocent passengers killed by some spotty toss pot of a youth that thinks HE is a great driver andd is showing off....
Whenever my wife drives anywhere I never feel the need to warn her about upcoming speed cameras or possible places where the police actively enforce the law with speed traps. I never need to tell her to slow down. We get where we are going safely and without incedent, and she (unlike me) has never been involved in any kind of serious accident or needed to make an insurance claim. She is a calm driver that is considerate of other road users.
As long as she can find a parking space that she can drive straight into then shes happy.....
Yes, as an enthusiastic driver, I sometimes break the speed limit. I do that at risk from being caught by one of the speed cameras. I accept that. It would be nice if they didnt exist. However, the truth of the matter is that the majority of drivers that speed on British roads aren't the kind of drivers that Pistonheads appeals to - they are the morons that speed in unacceptable conditions, drive beyond their abilities and in access of their vehicles safe limits, have no regard for other road users and innocent bystanders, are show offs and idiots. I would love to have speed cameras on the roads local to where I live, because 99% of the people that use these roads seem to think the speed limit only applies to other road users, and not them.
The article shows that Women differ from Men in their approach to speed camera enforement. Well, not at all surprised at that. Men are on the most part stupid arses that will argue any point they dont agree with instead of accepting the truth. Never seen a war started by a woman yet. You dont need a doctorate to know that women are safer, more considerate drivers, more likely to obey the law, and less likely to be involved in an accident - way less likely to be involved in one that involves speed. On the most part, women that are involved in accidents involving speed are usually the innocent passengers killed by some spotty toss pot of a youth that thinks HE is a great driver andd is showing off....
Whenever my wife drives anywhere I never feel the need to warn her about upcoming speed cameras or possible places where the police actively enforce the law with speed traps. I never need to tell her to slow down. We get where we are going safely and without incedent, and she (unlike me) has never been involved in any kind of serious accident or needed to make an insurance claim. She is a calm driver that is considerate of other road users.
As long as she can find a parking space that she can drive straight into then shes happy.....
In no way making huge generalisations, missing the point and patronising women....
All in one go, nice one Tony.
Women may statistically be less competitive or aggressive on the road, but I don't think its safe to argue that all are more considerate. I know of quite a few women (and been a passenger of) who are poor at anticipating hazards (e.g. driving too fast round corners or parked cars), driving while smoking/using the phone/eating/applying makeup/checking hair (yes I know these are stereotypes but sometimes they are true!). And of course we won't even mention parking!!
What we need is a campaign that emphasises care, consideration and anticipation and cementing driver skill rather than rants purely about speed (this applies certainly to the anti-speed lobby and perhaps for Safespeed as well) that appeals equally to both men and women.
JJ
What we need is a campaign that emphasises care, consideration and anticipation and cementing driver skill rather than rants purely about speed (this applies certainly to the anti-speed lobby and perhaps for Safespeed as well) that appeals equally to both men and women.
JJ
Edited by jazzyjeff on Wednesday 22 November 10:51
Edited by jazzyjeff on Wednesday 22 November 10:52
tony*t3 said:
Men are on the most part stupid arses that will argue any point they dont agree with instead of accepting the truth.
Well, at least you have provided some evidence for one part of your long whiney load of bollards! I wouldn't say most men though, just some, along with some women too.
Do you get bored of reading about climate change too? If you do - could you go and spout off against that instead, safe speed is a good thing, it is a cause aimed at increasing road safety, not increasing speed limits per se.
bdeng66 said:
In no way making huge generalisations, missing the point and patronising women....
All in one go, nice one Tony.
Yes, I admit to generalisation and perhaps missing the finer points of SafeSpeeds arguements, but I'd like to undersatnd how you feel that I am patronising women by admitting that they are generally better drivers, ess likely to be involved in major 'at fault' accidents, less likely to be involved in road rage incedents, less liekly to be involved in accidents where they are exceeding their skills and limits, and are much less likely to actually gain speeding points form 'scameras'.....
I've yet to see women suspects being sought in hit and run accidents, or to be up infront of the the courts for causeing death by speeding through built up areas, or to be causing death by showing off in front of their 'mates'....
What is patronising is that the article above expressly points out that the report was written by two female experts. Why?
jazzyjeff said:
Women may statistically be less competitive or aggressive on the road, but I don't think its safe to argue that all are more considerate. I know of quite a few women (and been a passenger of) who are poor at anticipating hazards (e.g. driving too fast round corners or parked cars), driving while smoking/using the phone/eating/applying makeup/checking hair (yes I know these are stereotypes but sometimes they are true!). And of course we won't even mention parking!!
What we need is a campaign that emphasises care, consideration and anticipation and cementing driver skill rather than rants purely about speed (this applies certainly to the anti-speed lobby and perhaps for Safespeed as well) that appeals equally to both men and women.
JJ
What we need is a campaign that emphasises care, consideration and anticipation and cementing driver skill rather than rants purely about speed (this applies certainly to the anti-speed lobby and perhaps for Safespeed as well) that appeals equally to both men and women.
JJ
Edited by jazzyjeff on Wednesday 22 November 10:51
Edited by jazzyjeff on Wednesday 22 November 10:52
And where will the 'campaign' come from?
As Tony has pointed out, no one seems to be listening to safespeed (I hope that isn't really the case) and time and time again we all moan but do nothing....why?
Because as someone has pointed out already, we all have to go to work to support our families and keep a roof over our heads and therfore have no time. Hence we moan and nothing changes, our only oppurtunity is to support the work of safespeed and to vote at the next election for a party that makes more sense.
Anyone know of such a beast?
Edited by bdeng66 on Wednesday 22 November 11:07
Edited by bdeng66 on Wednesday 22 November 11:11
tony*t3 said:
bdeng66 said:
In no way making huge generalisations, missing the point and patronising women....
All in one go, nice one Tony.
Yes, I admit to generalisation and perhaps missing the finer points of SafeSpeeds arguements, but I'd like to undersatnd how you feel that I am patronising women by admitting that they are generally better drivers, ess likely to be involved in major 'at fault' accidents, less likely to be involved in road rage incedents, less liekly to be involved in accidents where they are exceeding their skills and limits, and are much less likely to actually gain speeding points form 'scameras'.....
I've yet to see women suspects being sought in hit and run accidents, or to be up infront of the the courts for causeing death by speeding through built up areas, or to be causing death by showing off in front of their 'mates'....
What is patronising is that the article above expressly points out that the report was written by two female experts. Why?
Two out of three, then?
The third point is only IMHO, but has a bit to do with the way you talk about;
"As long as she can find a parking space that she can drive straight into then shes happy....."
Thats all.....
tigger1 said:
[quote=tony*t3]
Do you get bored of reading about climate change too? If you do - could you go and spout off against that instead, safe speed is a good thing, it is a cause aimed at increasing road safety, not increasing speed limits per se.
Do you get bored of reading about climate change too? If you do - could you go and spout off against that instead, safe speed is a good thing, it is a cause aimed at increasing road safety, not increasing speed limits per se.
My point was whenever there is anything about speed cameras (which in general I do not support as a good way of enforceing good driving skills and safety)is mentioned on Pistonheads we have 'SafeSpeed' immidiatly argue the findings. And yes, SafeSpeed sound very much like the people that say global warming isn't a problem because they dont agree with the interpretation of the statistics and facts....
Unfortuinatly, Scameras do have a place in our soceiety as most drivers are not enthusiastic, skilled, careful, drivers such that Pistonheads attract. I understand that SafeSpeed would rather see drivers educated properly about safe speed in safe conditions etc, but the fact of the matter is that most people are not good judges of their own skills and safety margins and so it has to be enforced unilatterally.... Furthermore, most men would over estimate their own skills and experience. And in making a big generalisation, I'd say this applies to Men more than Women.
bdeng66 said:
Two out of three, then?
The third point is only IMHO, but has a bit to do with the way you talk about;
"As long as she can find a parking space that she can drive straight into then shes happy....."
Thats all.....
Fair enough, however, this was a comment about an indevidual, not a generalisation on half the population.
However, to be fair, yes, many men will see women drivers make mistakes when driveing and point them out or comment on them. Yes, perhaps, some women do silly things like put they're make up on, and we all have a laugh about it. However, as many men smoke/eat/drink/use the phone while driving as women do (perhaps more even...?)
Lets be honest here though. We see many women struggle with some aspects of driving - like parking etc. But we rarely see them as being the cause of major accidents.... do we...? I'd like to know how many men get pulled for speeding as appossed to women....
tony*t3 said:
bdeng66 said:
Two out of three, then?
The third point is only IMHO, but has a bit to do with the way you talk about;
"As long as she can find a parking space that she can drive straight into then shes happy....."
Thats all.....
Fair enough, however, this was a comment about an indevidual, not a generalisation on half the population.
However, to be fair, yes, many men will see women drivers make mistakes when driveing and point them out or comment on them. Yes, perhaps, some women do silly things like put they're make up on, and we all have a laugh about it. However, as many men smoke/eat/drink/use the phone while driving as women do (perhaps more even...?)
Lets be honest here though. We see many women struggle with some aspects of driving - like parking etc. But we rarely see them as being the cause of major accidents.... do we...? I'd like to know how many men get pulled for speeding as appossed to women....
Isn't that the point that safespeed is trying to make?
That the majority of accidents aren't caused by speeding?
Therefore the majority are caused by plain old bad driving, whether you are male or female. The point of Safespeeds arguements are that the report assumes that breaking the speedlimit is dangerous per se. and then looks at driver behaviour in relation to speed cameras.
Paul Smith goes on to make clear his concerns, that the majority of accidents are nothing to do with speeding, yet no one is looking into or providing an explanation as to why a road safety policy based on speed is having no effect on road fatalities, and that we seem to be ignoring the real causes of road deaths.
Well thats my interpretation for what its worth!
I can kind of see the point that if Safe Speed gets too bogged down in opposing anything for the sake of it, it risks losing it's key advantage - the logical high ground.
Perhaps a more balanced (if less PC) response might be that yes, women are likely to drive slower, but that's prinicpally because it's difficult to apply make-up or talk on the phone about new look's new shoe range whilst driving at a respectable rate
(only joking - well, partly!)
Have to be honest - I do agree with another one of Tony's comments, atleast to a degree. Just about all the permanent speed cameras I can think of are in urban locations. Many are in 30mph limits, which in a majority of road conditions are fairly justified. The limits that is - make your own judgment on the police cash machines that sit beside them. However, I have noticed an increasing number of scamera locations on faster roads, well away from pedestriand and in the case of dual carriage ways, on comming traffic or side turnings too. I saw 4 police cars and 2 scamera vans on a trip up the deserted A303 on Monday. There are a few slightly dodgy spots (going down to one lane over the brow of a hill etc) and these aren't the ones that get policed. It's place where people are likely to do the highest speeds, and dare I say it, laybys where there is some cover to disguise the police car or scamera van.
I'll end with a little story. I always drive very carefully round the extremely narrow single lane road that goes through the village near me at home in Devon. One morning, a woman came out yelling at me - it confused me for a second as I was doing barely more than wlaking pace, so I thought she must be pointing out a car problem. Then I realised she was screaming at me convinced I was driving too fast and about to mow down her kids. My speed - maybe 10mph? Unfortunatly my car at the time made a lot of noise, especially when I put my foot down comming out of the village where the road opened up.
....at the same time one of my friends - a young woman in an anonymous 1.1 metro, used to go through the same road at litterally two or three times the speed. People used to smile at her and give the occasional wave.
Work that one out.
Perhaps a more balanced (if less PC) response might be that yes, women are likely to drive slower, but that's prinicpally because it's difficult to apply make-up or talk on the phone about new look's new shoe range whilst driving at a respectable rate
(only joking - well, partly!)
Have to be honest - I do agree with another one of Tony's comments, atleast to a degree. Just about all the permanent speed cameras I can think of are in urban locations. Many are in 30mph limits, which in a majority of road conditions are fairly justified. The limits that is - make your own judgment on the police cash machines that sit beside them. However, I have noticed an increasing number of scamera locations on faster roads, well away from pedestriand and in the case of dual carriage ways, on comming traffic or side turnings too. I saw 4 police cars and 2 scamera vans on a trip up the deserted A303 on Monday. There are a few slightly dodgy spots (going down to one lane over the brow of a hill etc) and these aren't the ones that get policed. It's place where people are likely to do the highest speeds, and dare I say it, laybys where there is some cover to disguise the police car or scamera van.
I'll end with a little story. I always drive very carefully round the extremely narrow single lane road that goes through the village near me at home in Devon. One morning, a woman came out yelling at me - it confused me for a second as I was doing barely more than wlaking pace, so I thought she must be pointing out a car problem. Then I realised she was screaming at me convinced I was driving too fast and about to mow down her kids. My speed - maybe 10mph? Unfortunatly my car at the time made a lot of noise, especially when I put my foot down comming out of the village where the road opened up.
....at the same time one of my friends - a young woman in an anonymous 1.1 metro, used to go through the same road at litterally two or three times the speed. People used to smile at her and give the occasional wave.
Work that one out.
I agree with safe speeds comments in that the speed camera issue cannot be broken into gender bias as both men and women have to use the road.
Marketing 'safety cameras' (*COUGH* B******T) to different sex's is a complete waste of money, but thats the point, it would be a nice excuse for the 'government' (*COUGH* Dictatorship (IMHO) to waste more money and put the fines up.
More Lies, More Damn Lies and More Statistics.
Who knows what questions she asked and how they were asked?
Where are the results?
Where is her interpretation of these results?
Unless this information is available freely for people to make there own assesment the statements made are waste of time.
Marketing 'safety cameras' (*COUGH* B******T) to different sex's is a complete waste of money, but thats the point, it would be a nice excuse for the 'government' (*COUGH* Dictatorship (IMHO) to waste more money and put the fines up.
More Lies, More Damn Lies and More Statistics.
Who knows what questions she asked and how they were asked?
Where are the results?
Where is her interpretation of these results?
Unless this information is available freely for people to make there own assesment the statements made are waste of time.
interestingly the report has a very worrying new concept, that of "complying with speed cameras". What on earth is that? Are we looking at a future where the speed camera is the statute? Comply with it rather than any law? Scary!
At least the report has the good grace not to call them safety cameras!
Interstingly I too was put off initially by the safespeed response. The 2nd para launching into there not being a connection between speed limits and safety looked a bit like a rabid mantra recital (or more likely cut and paste) rather than addressing the report directly. however on reading it worked ok addressing some specific points of the report.
Graham
At least the report has the good grace not to call them safety cameras!
Interstingly I too was put off initially by the safespeed response. The 2nd para launching into there not being a connection between speed limits and safety looked a bit like a rabid mantra recital (or more likely cut and paste) rather than addressing the report directly. however on reading it worked ok addressing some specific points of the report.
Graham
tony*t3 said:
Getting a bit sick of hearing 'SafeSpeed' denegrate every aspect of anything to do with speed limit enforcement. etc
tony, supposing I kept on releasing reports telling you that 2 add 2 made 17, time and time again, and you kept refuting it explaining chapter and verse why I kept getting the wrong answer. Would it be logical for you to occasionally appease me by agreeing that ok 2+2 was 17 just so that people didn't get sick of you disagreeing?
SM
tony*t3 said:
Getting a bit sick of hearing 'SafeSpeed' denegrate every aspect of anything to do with speed limit enforcement. Starting to sound like one of those crazy 'Street Preachers'....
Don't blame me if they build layer upon layer of science on false assumptions. That's what's happened here again.
tony*t3 said:
the people that matter aren't listening to you mate - because they dont want to. Every other day theres an article promoting SafeSpeed on here with the same old tosh..... its boring and its pointless.
Allow me to assure you that they are very much listening.
Haven't you noticed how often speed cameras are on the front pages of the papers? That's a very serious problem for a government. What they are doing is pretending not to listen. But that didn't stop last years speed camera moratorium. That didn't stop next year's funding scheme changes. That didn't stop RTTM being covered in last year's report. That didn't stop DfT from starting a research project into speed camera side effects (due in early 2008).
And if you think it's 'tosh' then please do us all a favour and point out exactly what is tosh.
Men drive faster because they have more developed hand-eye co-ordination skills, because they are more competitive, because they enjoy driving more than most women, they are more likely to drive for work, less likely to be carrying kids and a million other reasons. As for convictions, men are far more likely to be convicted for just about any offence from Armed Robbery to Fraud so it's hardly surprising that it's the same with motoring convictions.
As for never heard of a woman starting a war before, have you never heard of Elizabeth the first? She had a proud record of Spanish bashing to her name. "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of a King of England too! And I think it foul scorn that Spain or Parma or any prince of Europe should dare invade the borders of my realm".
I fully support Safespeed, if you listen to Paul's arguments it's clear that his main goal is improved road safety backed up by proper scientific analysis and data. Something we should all strive to.
As for never heard of a woman starting a war before, have you never heard of Elizabeth the first? She had a proud record of Spanish bashing to her name. "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of a King of England too! And I think it foul scorn that Spain or Parma or any prince of Europe should dare invade the borders of my realm".
I fully support Safespeed, if you listen to Paul's arguments it's clear that his main goal is improved road safety backed up by proper scientific analysis and data. Something we should all strive to.
At the end of the day, we all know that statistics can and will be used to proove/disproove any arguement that someone wants to make.
Its like the rather daft one about Air Travel being statistically the safest form of transport based on deaths per million miles travelled....
which doesn't sit comfortablly with the statistic that being an Airline Pilot is statistically one of the most dangerous professions in the world.....
My main point was not SafeSpeeds arguement itself, as I agree with most of what is ssaid, but how it always follows any story on Pistonheads. Its amazing how many arguements are lost by people that are basically correct, because their methods of presenting their arguements fail.
Its like the rather daft one about Air Travel being statistically the safest form of transport based on deaths per million miles travelled....
which doesn't sit comfortablly with the statistic that being an Airline Pilot is statistically one of the most dangerous professions in the world.....
My main point was not SafeSpeeds arguement itself, as I agree with most of what is ssaid, but how it always follows any story on Pistonheads. Its amazing how many arguements are lost by people that are basically correct, because their methods of presenting their arguements fail.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff