Why we are fighting the Ministry of Disinformation
Discussion
To those new to Pistonheads: Just about everyone who uses this site is a law abiding citizen, it just so happens that most of us are motoring enthusiasts & probably drive far more miles per annum than mr average. Most of us have taken some form of advanced driving course or show an interest in advancing our motoring knowledge.
I'm sure many a high mileage motorist has witnessed their fair share of bad driving, road accidents & even fatal accidents, myself included. It's obvious lives are being lost due to driver error not to speeding. Unfortunately technology can easily detect a speeding motorist but not bad driving. Therefore it's an easy route to go down for the authorities. However it's now becoming clear that figures are speaking for themselves with the fatality rate stagnant or rising, despite the advancement in modern & safe vehicles.
I would not like to be the authorities responsible for making the decisions that have led to these additional fatalities when they know if drivers had been educated most of those souls would still be here now. They are promoting a false & misleading propaganda in a manner not dissimilar to Saddam's Ministry of Disinformation, at last it's been exposed by the likes of those on this website.
If my child was killed by by a motorist looking at his speedo & not concentrating on the road ahead who should be guilty?
I'm sure many a high mileage motorist has witnessed their fair share of bad driving, road accidents & even fatal accidents, myself included. It's obvious lives are being lost due to driver error not to speeding. Unfortunately technology can easily detect a speeding motorist but not bad driving. Therefore it's an easy route to go down for the authorities. However it's now becoming clear that figures are speaking for themselves with the fatality rate stagnant or rising, despite the advancement in modern & safe vehicles.
I would not like to be the authorities responsible for making the decisions that have led to these additional fatalities when they know if drivers had been educated most of those souls would still be here now. They are promoting a false & misleading propaganda in a manner not dissimilar to Saddam's Ministry of Disinformation, at last it's been exposed by the likes of those on this website.
If my child was killed by by a motorist looking at his speedo & not concentrating on the road ahead who should be guilty?
I'm going to argue devils advocate for a while here because the initial post makes me uneasy. The impression I get is that the post is right. There are a great many others things that cause accidents and harm other than speed. But why don't I just agree with you, by banning speed firat and then concentrating on the others later.
While I completely agree with the idea that there are other factors that should be looked at. That fact alone doesn't seem to make the arguement that speed doesn't matter in the accident equation.
I personally believe that reducing speed would certainly improve road deaths. Cos the logical conclusion is that if we all drove at 1mph, and tied pillows to our front bumpers fatal accidents would reduce to one overnight (cos theres always one isn't there)
I would prefer the acceptance of speed as an important factor and then argue from there. Cos in the middle of this arguement with Brake on one side and Us on the other, is joe public. I think moving toward the centre would help our cause a lot.
While I completely agree with the idea that there are other factors that should be looked at. That fact alone doesn't seem to make the arguement that speed doesn't matter in the accident equation.
I personally believe that reducing speed would certainly improve road deaths. Cos the logical conclusion is that if we all drove at 1mph, and tied pillows to our front bumpers fatal accidents would reduce to one overnight (cos theres always one isn't there)
I would prefer the acceptance of speed as an important factor and then argue from there. Cos in the middle of this arguement with Brake on one side and Us on the other, is joe public. I think moving toward the centre would help our cause a lot.
The problem here is that the focus on speed detracts from other safety issues, i know for one If I dont have my road angel in the car then i spend far far too long looking at the speedo and not at the road...
Driver see speed camera van 500yds ahead
- checks speedo
- keeps checking speedo
Child steps out into road
- driver look up from speedo
BANG!
- too late dead child
- And driver probably gets done for manslaughter, when in fact th scamera partnership should be up for corporate manslaughter
It has to stop it is a distraction and it does not save lives period
Driver see speed camera van 500yds ahead
- checks speedo
- keeps checking speedo
Child steps out into road
- driver look up from speedo
BANG!
- too late dead child
- And driver probably gets done for manslaughter, when in fact th scamera partnership should be up for corporate manslaughter
It has to stop it is a distraction and it does not save lives period
Julian - as a learned individual, what you say makes sense. I have a science degree which involved studying physics to a high level at University so the comment that reducing speed reduces the nature of injuries is difficult to refute.
However until someone shows me that speed cameras save lives, I'll be fighting differently. Especially while individuals such as MW broadcast this mantra without proof .
I don't know whether it's the driver in me or the educated and open minded individual appreciating democracy who takes issue more.
However until someone shows me that speed cameras save lives, I'll be fighting differently. Especially while individuals such as MW broadcast this mantra without proof .
I don't know whether it's the driver in me or the educated and open minded individual appreciating democracy who takes issue more.
deltaf said:Hit the nail on the okabey there deltaf. Standard management principle, "You can't manage what don't measure." or to put it another way, "You can only manage what you do measure." - Streaky
Flawed viewpoint Julian. No evidence to support speed as a major accident causer.
Why concentrate on it then? Cos you can measure it?
Exactly the way these losers minds work.
Dont make important wha you can measure, measure whats important!
If you take the basic 'speed kills' theory and simplify it further then you get 'moving vehicles kill'
After all, all accidents involving vehicles on roads HAVE to involve a moving vehicle, therefore concentrate on preventing vehicles moving, or not having vehicles at all.
Similarly, if you assume all vehicle-pedestrian accidents of the sort we are concerned with occur on the roads or adjacent footpaths then surely the 'speed' at which the pedestrian is travelling has an effect on the accident and avoidance measures.
Surely the fact the pedestrian is there also has a contribution to make to the accident.
Therefore limit the speed pedestrians can move to say, 0 mph and/or prevent them from leaving fully pedestrianised areas.
Thinking about the issue from the point of view of purely preventing accidents, everything becomes very clear and easy, simply prevent vehicles moving and pedestrians moving.
Now I know there is a flaw somewhere in this position, but so long as accidents, deaths and serious injuries are reduced then it is worth it surely?
After all, all accidents involving vehicles on roads HAVE to involve a moving vehicle, therefore concentrate on preventing vehicles moving, or not having vehicles at all.
Similarly, if you assume all vehicle-pedestrian accidents of the sort we are concerned with occur on the roads or adjacent footpaths then surely the 'speed' at which the pedestrian is travelling has an effect on the accident and avoidance measures.
Surely the fact the pedestrian is there also has a contribution to make to the accident.
Therefore limit the speed pedestrians can move to say, 0 mph and/or prevent them from leaving fully pedestrianised areas.
Thinking about the issue from the point of view of purely preventing accidents, everything becomes very clear and easy, simply prevent vehicles moving and pedestrians moving.
Now I know there is a flaw somewhere in this position, but so long as accidents, deaths and serious injuries are reduced then it is worth it surely?
Julian64 said:
I would prefer the acceptance of speed as an important factor and then argue from there.
But it's (outwith a speed limit) not; that's the point. In Durham (according to Paul Garvin in the Sunday Times) it's about 3% (he was referring to accidents, not csualties).
IMO this is the killer fact that 'they' want to suppress. Look at the timing of the Brunstrom Safespeed memo (don't give him your data). Despite Paul's site having been up for about two years, the instuction only appeared after Paul posted information about Avon & Somerset's 'excessive speed ouwith a speed limit' statistics.
It would appear that the situation you have in the UK is quite logical. The implementation of such policy will always be supported by media management and whichever vocal opinions that can be identified as friendly to the cause. If the said vocal opinion is truly in line with ‘policy’ then it will be elevated to ‘expert’ status irrespective of any supporting qualification or factual base. The whole problem would appear to be simply a matter of cash flow management as there is no factual base of safety.
They have automated revenue collection via a simple quantifiable test and then created target incentives by contracting out. Efficient business plan if you ask me.
Having established that there is this fiscal shortfall of X million per annum, remove it from the plan.
The question is now only safety.
As safety is (and has always been) based on unqualifiable criteria, the only possible control has to be expert assessment. Lets increase the number of qualified experts to control safety (at a cost of Y million per annum).
Question now is whether you can afford the total cost of X+Y millions per annum for a genuine policy that really is aimed at improving safety? And then if you can lobby for the funding policy for the original X million per annum shortfall to be financed in a different manner?
They have automated revenue collection via a simple quantifiable test and then created target incentives by contracting out. Efficient business plan if you ask me.
Having established that there is this fiscal shortfall of X million per annum, remove it from the plan.
The question is now only safety.
As safety is (and has always been) based on unqualifiable criteria, the only possible control has to be expert assessment. Lets increase the number of qualified experts to control safety (at a cost of Y million per annum).
Question now is whether you can afford the total cost of X+Y millions per annum for a genuine policy that really is aimed at improving safety? And then if you can lobby for the funding policy for the original X million per annum shortfall to be financed in a different manner?
With reference to a number of threads, what ARE the main causes of accidents? Are they education related (lane swapping, tailgating etc), or drink/drugs, tiredness, distractions, (kids, eating, smoking, phone) or other factors such as drunken pedestrians? Can we not find out and start to campaign in the road safety areas not already covered?
jeffreyarcher said:
Julian64 said:
I would prefer the acceptance of speed as an important factor and then argue from there.
But it's (outwith a speed limit) not; that's the point. In Durham (according to Paul Garvin in the Sunday Times) it's about 3% (he was referring to accidents, not csualties).
...
To be pedantic (but it's an important distinction that Paul Garvin himeslf made) he was referring to crashes - ie. there was a cause (generally other than inappropriate speed). 'Crash' is maybe an emotive term ... but it is accurate. I submit that we might say, "Sorry, dear, I had an accident on the way home." rather than the balder, "I crashed!" so as to lessen the impact. Perhaps we should start talking about 'crashes' rather than accidents as one counterpoint to the lobbyists. It might unnerve them even more to find we had adopted an emotive but unarguable word to describe the frequent result of bad driving ... at whatever speed Ms Williams (See: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=72005&f=10&h=0)
Streaky
PS - it amuses me to think of Murray Walker screaming, "And Mansell has an accident out of the French Grand Prix!" - S
>> Edited by streaky on Tuesday 16th December 13:37
Julian64 said:
I personally believe that reducing speed would certainly improve road deaths..
You would be wrong I'm afraid. The cameras are killing people. Northamptonshire, one of the most pro camera counties, has seen a rise in fatalities despite slower average speeds and fewer overall accidents. Hertfordshire is another case in point. 2002 saw a drop in overall accidents yet a rise in fatalities (archived news on www.hertsdirect.org). The ratio of deaths per accident actually went UP marginally - the solution? Why more cameras of course. My personal opinion is that by focussing solely on speed, we're leading the general public to the (false) conclusion that as long as they don't exceed an arbitrary figure (the speed limit) then they'll be safe. No emphasis is being placed on SAFE driving at all, hence driving standards (within the speed limits, crucially) are DROPPING and fatalities are RISING. The camera partnerships simply hide this behind big, bold "35% reduction in accidents" claims, and then refuse to openly discuss the worrying upward trend in fatalities or any highlighted inconsistencies in their statistics.
These people exist solely to continue the growth of cameras on our roads, as that's what is paying their wages. Making roads genuinely SAFER would put them out of a job, so you can see why they're so keen to deny any statistics or argument contrary to their own faith based position.
The conspiracy theorist in me also says that these people are nothing more than part of the glut of non jobs Labour has created to ensure it has captive voters come the next General Election - no Labour Government, no job....who do you think these people will vote for?
streaky said:
'Crash' is maybe an emotive term ... but it is accurate. I submit that we might say, "Sorry, dear, I had an accident on the way home." rather than the balder, "I crashed!" so as to lessen the impact. Perhaps we should start talking about 'crashes' rather than accidents as one counterpoint to the lobbyists.
"Crash" is a totally inappropriate term because it is traditionally used to describe an accident (sorry) between two motor vehicles.
You don't say "he crashed into a pedestrian crossing the road", it would be "he hit a pedestrian" or, more formally "he collided with a pedestrian".
The last term COLLISIONS is probably best to use.
I can't find it right now, but Hampshire Safety Camera Partnership recently released some figures and repeatedly stated the number of "crashes" has fallen yet they failed to state the actual injury figures. One wonders whether vehicle/pedestrian injuries were deliberately excluded by the use of this term.
Gareth
g_attrill said:I accept your argument (although I could find instances where 'crashed into {an animate object}' was the phraseology used), but submit that 'crash' is a harsher word than 'collide'. I note that the Telepgraph report (cit) refers to "struck" and "took ... with it" - both soft words/phrases to describe a traumatic event.
'Crash' is maybe an emotive term ... but it is accurate. I submit that we might say, "Sorry, dear, I had an accident on the way home." rather than the balder, "I crashed!" so as to lessen the impact. Perhaps we should start talking about 'crashes' rather than accidents as one counterpoint to the lobbyists.
"Crash" is a totally inappropriate term because it is traditionally used to describe an accident (sorry) between two motor vehicles.
You don't say "he crashed into a pedestrian crossing the road", it would be "he hit a pedestrian" or, more formally "he collided with a pedestrian".
The last term COLLISIONS is probably best to use.
I can't find it right now, but Hampshire Safety Camera Partnership recently released some figures and repeatedly stated the number of "crashes" has fallen yet they failed to state the actual injury figures. One wonders whether vehicle/pedestrian injuries were deliberately excluded by the use of this term.
Gareth
BTW - a dictionary definition of 'crash' is, "To dash together with noise and violence." That for 'collide' is, "Crash together with violence"
. Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff