RE: Casualty Reduction
Thursday 26th February 2004
Liverpool £1,017,000
Nottingham £862,000
Sandwell £1,282,750
TOTAL £4,321,750
Casualty Reduction
A balanced approach for deprived areas?
Four local authorities have been awarded over £4 million for extra road safety measures to reduce casualties in deprived areas.
The money has been allocated to Bradford, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sandwell in the West Midlands from the 'Dealing with Disadvantage' initiative and will be used to address road safety problems in poorer areas. It follows the award of over £11million to deprived areas in Greater Manchester and Lancashire last year. Children from the most deprived areas are five times more likely to be killed in road accidents than children from more affluent areas. Projects will include:- Making routes to schools, parks and play areas safer
- Educating children and adults to dangers on the road
- Traffic calming measures
- New pedestrian crossings
- Child car seat inspection and fitting services
"We are committed to improving road safety in deprived areas, where children are at much greater risk of being killed in road accidents. This funding will go a long way to improving education and crossing facilities for young people, as well as for older people. "The money is part of £17 million in total which we have allocated as part of our 'Dealing with Disadvantage' programme and I hope that all the local authorities which have benefited will see real improvements in road safety in their deprived areas."The total grants announced today are: Bradford £1,160,000
Liverpool £1,017,000
Nottingham £862,000
Sandwell £1,282,750
TOTAL £4,321,750
Discussion
So why are kids in deprived areas several times as likely to be killed in road accidents?
Could it be that:
a) Their parents allow them to play in the road
b) Once they hit seventeen they drive like tools everywhere and, funnily enough, do so at home too.
Not a politically correct thing to say but it seems likely to me...
Could it be that:
a) Their parents allow them to play in the road
b) Once they hit seventeen they drive like tools everywhere and, funnily enough, do so at home too.
Not a politically correct thing to say but it seems likely to me...
Don said:
So why are kids in deprived areas several times as likely to be killed in road accidents?
Could it be that:
a) Their parents allow them to play in the road
b) Once they hit seventeen they drive like tools everywhere and, funnily enough, do so at home too.
Not a politically correct thing to say but it seems likely to me...
A child is for life not just to satisfy some hormonal imbalance.
Because of the hysteria culture that means concentration spans are now 30 seconds. Children are increasingly kicked out of the house. Result is carnage. Some of this money should be spent on erecting big blue and white roadsigns saying. "You are now entering the ghetto where irresponsible parenting is the norm and loads of kids will be running about willy nilly. Some of them will be deliberately trying to injure themselves on your car for the compensation. You have been warned"
Don said:
So why are kids in deprived areas several times as likely to be killed in road accidents?
Could it be that:
a) Their parents allow them to play in the road
b) Once they hit seventeen they drive like tools everywhere and, funnily enough, do so at home too.
Not a politically correct thing to say but it seems likely to me...
Agree.
Just when I thought this government couldn't think of any more ways to pander to the stupid. What a bl00dy waste to other peoples' money. The money won't be used to educate the stupid, it will be used to p155 off the motorist with nanny-state pinch points, speed humps, revenue cameras and so on.
The wise and aware suffering for the stupid yet again.
So, next time you enter an official 'Deprived area' (if the signs haven't been nicked), you'll be faced with an urban assault course of speed humps so big you can't see the other side, traffic slaloms that appear out of nowhere, a crazy one-way system which forces you to drive to the other side of the city to get out again, to add to the kids who think it's a playground playing football in the middle of the road and shooting your car with a paintball gun.
Brilliant
Brilliant
james_j said:Sorry to correct you. It's not "other people's money" ... it's our money.
... What a bl00dy waste to other peoples' money.
At least the Yanks have the sense to say, "Your tax dollars at work"; here it's "the government's money" or "the council's money". No it f
ing isn't; it's OUR MONEY! Streaky
[quote=Don]So why are kids in deprived areas several times as likely to be killed in road accidents?
quote]
Because evil, middleclass, tory voting, car owners like nothing better than to take their polluting examples of capitalist, imperial war machinery into these areas to engage in their mindless lust for blood sport.
This is what happens when you take away the normal outlets for their mindless aggression such as fox hunting.
quote]
Because evil, middleclass, tory voting, car owners like nothing better than to take their polluting examples of capitalist, imperial war machinery into these areas to engage in their mindless lust for blood sport.
This is what happens when you take away the normal outlets for their mindless aggression such as fox hunting.
XM5ER said:
[quote=Don]So why are kids in deprived areas several times as likely to be killed in road accidents?
quote]
Because evil, middleclass, tory voting, car owners like nothing better than to take their polluting examples of capitalist, imperial war machinery into these areas to engage in their mindless lust for blood sport.
This is what happens when you take away the normal outlets for their mindless aggression such as fox hunting.
PMSL
The noble gentry get their own back on the townies - Brilliant idea!
Don said:
So why are kids in deprived areas several times as likely to be killed in road accidents?
Could it be that:
a) Their parents allow them to play in the road
b) Once they hit seventeen they drive like tools everywhere and, funnily enough, do so at home too.
Not a politically correct thing to say but it seems likely to me...
Exactly single parent families with kids running amoke and getting run over in the process it proved this government does not have any intention of resolving the real issues but using it as another lever on the motorist, why not spent it on youth clubs and free sport facilities and lots of other directly benificail stuff. I drive a commercail vehicle do they know what it is like banging over fukin speed bumps all day long?
V8 Archie said:Reminds me of a "humps" road sign I saw a couple of years ago on the outskirts of London. It had been modified so that there was a vertical protrusion in the middle of the "hump" and the wording read "Humps for 80 min" - Streaky
do they know what it is like banging over fukin speed bumps all day long?
I'll have to find a girl to educate me in that tomorrow.
>> Edited by streaky on Friday 27th February 08:11
David Jamieson said: "Funds will go a long way to improve education and crossing facilities for young people!"
Perhaps. But some people are lazy! Too much effort to walk just a couple of yards to the crossing at present! Will they learn? Are they willing to learn?
By all means - provide the education/parenting classes for them - and then recap OUR money in fining THEM when they BREAK the LAW by J-walking! After all - many, many accidents are caused by these people - and all blame is placed on the driver, who is judged guilty, immediately, of driving too fast - even if it transpires later that s/he was driving at appropriate speed!
(WildCat bein' naive 'ere! 'cos in some of these cases - they "cannot afford/will not pay the fine!"
Cannot lock them up - too many motorists clogging up the jails and there is thus no room at th'Inn for these folk!
In any case - it is not politically correct to discipline the so-called "deprived" in any way.
In my opinion - it is very much politically incorrect and incredibly condescending, even disprespectful to them, to pussyfoot around soft-soaping these people.
Course - all that will happen - as people have pointed out will be: more humps, scams, chicanes....
Though perhaps they should go easy on those humps - do not want any more "BUMPties!" to "educate" later!
>> Edited by WildCat on Friday 27th February 09:47
Perhaps. But some people are lazy! Too much effort to walk just a couple of yards to the crossing at present! Will they learn? Are they willing to learn?
By all means - provide the education/parenting classes for them - and then recap OUR money in fining THEM when they BREAK the LAW by J-walking! After all - many, many accidents are caused by these people - and all blame is placed on the driver, who is judged guilty, immediately, of driving too fast - even if it transpires later that s/he was driving at appropriate speed!
(WildCat bein' naive 'ere! 'cos in some of these cases - they "cannot afford/will not pay the fine!"
Cannot lock them up - too many motorists clogging up the jails and there is thus no room at th'Inn for these folk!
In any case - it is not politically correct to discipline the so-called "deprived" in any way.
In my opinion - it is very much politically incorrect and incredibly condescending, even disprespectful to them, to pussyfoot around soft-soaping these people.
Course - all that will happen - as people have pointed out will be: more humps, scams, chicanes....
Though perhaps they should go easy on those humps - do not want any more "BUMPties!" to "educate" later!
>> Edited by WildCat on Friday 27th February 09:47
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff