Blast At Bolton Bullsh!t Needed
Discussion
Any Lancashire Lads or Ladies want to respond to this rant:
Law should come down hard on destructive drivers
A safer world needed - for children's sake
www.thisisbolton.co.uk/lancashire/bolton/news/BENLETTERS0.html
Law should come down hard on destructive drivers
A safer world needed - for children's sake
www.thisisbolton.co.uk/lancashire/bolton/news/BENLETTERS0.html
I've responded to this spin:
'Speeding cameras are saving lives'
A LEADING road safety campaigner in the North-west has slammed opposition to speed cameras in Bolton and claims they help to save lives.
www.thisisbolton.co.uk/lancashire/bolton/news/NEWS3.html
With this:
Emma Reynolds, an employee of the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership ('Speeding cameras are saving lives’, 15 March 2004) boasts that the partnership is prosecution, judge, jury and executioner in it’s own case against motorists who drive safely in excess of an arbitrary limit, admitting to trumping up a charge of dangerous driving against them.
But the most interesting aspect of her diatribe against drivers is that, in amongst the shroud waving, spin, hysteria and innuendo, there is no mention of how many lives the cameras are actually saving.
Can I take it, then, that she was putting down a smokescreen to disguise the fact that fatalities have failed to fall yet again.
When they used to plummet pre cameras and “safety” partnerships.
Sorry, Ms Reynolds, the public are catching on:
We’ve spotted that you put cameras where accidents have happened, not where they are going to happen. Which should mean that fatalities should fall 100% at camera sites, but they only fall 35% at them.
But go up overall.
Unfortunately my address is well out of their area.
And, unlike the scamera partnerships, I don't lie!
'Speeding cameras are saving lives'
A LEADING road safety campaigner in the North-west has slammed opposition to speed cameras in Bolton and claims they help to save lives.
www.thisisbolton.co.uk/lancashire/bolton/news/NEWS3.html
With this:
Emma Reynolds, an employee of the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership ('Speeding cameras are saving lives’, 15 March 2004) boasts that the partnership is prosecution, judge, jury and executioner in it’s own case against motorists who drive safely in excess of an arbitrary limit, admitting to trumping up a charge of dangerous driving against them.
But the most interesting aspect of her diatribe against drivers is that, in amongst the shroud waving, spin, hysteria and innuendo, there is no mention of how many lives the cameras are actually saving.
Can I take it, then, that she was putting down a smokescreen to disguise the fact that fatalities have failed to fall yet again.
When they used to plummet pre cameras and “safety” partnerships.
Sorry, Ms Reynolds, the public are catching on:
We’ve spotted that you put cameras where accidents have happened, not where they are going to happen. Which should mean that fatalities should fall 100% at camera sites, but they only fall 35% at them.
But go up overall.
Unfortunately my address is well out of their area.
And, unlike the scamera partnerships, I don't lie!
I'm too knackered to react with the venom this dripping idiocy warrants.
Suffice it to say, I feel a little like that creature at the end of the seminal celluloid opus, Predator who, faced with oblivion at the hands of Arnie and an improbably wieghty boulder, seeks to end his risible situation by way of a wrist-activated Rolex Armageddon.
People never having sat on chairs scenario.
Urgh.
Suffice it to say, I feel a little like that creature at the end of the seminal celluloid opus, Predator who, faced with oblivion at the hands of Arnie and an improbably wieghty boulder, seeks to end his risible situation by way of a wrist-activated Rolex Armageddon.
People never having sat on chairs scenario.
Urgh.
Not read the full threa here but just caught the bit about the speed camera outside the private school there is also a red light camera near it as well. The simple fact is that there have been 5 fatal accidents within 2 miles of that camera in the last 3 years three of which were in an 18 month span and within 300 metres
john robson said:
Not read the full threa here but just caught the bit about the speed camera outside the private school there is also a red light camera near it as well. The simple fact is that there have been 5 fatal accidents within 2 miles of that camera in the last 3 years three of which were in an 18 month span and within 300 metres
Caused by what though? Drunk driving? Drug driving? Suicidal pedestrians? Lack of observation? What percentage actually involved vehicles travelling above the posted limit? Ok, so there have been fatal accidents, but why is the assumption always that a camera will solve everything?
Ach hornet Liebchen!
Just read his post on another thread - and this guy's a BiB - I think! But John does say he thinks scams have gone OTT on another thread - the Leics one!!
Most people know from all my various rantings that I am from family who take pride in comfortable, very safe driving, and whilst not condoning OTT speeding will admit that there have been very occasional just over drifts which every one -even the police and even you, yourself, John, will make! I do not agree that people's licences should be bruised for that, nor do I believe road safety measures revolve around hidden talivans (one of which parked itself in my garden the other morning!!), concealed Gatsos and such like. You want to make folk slow down, save lives - then stop prat@arsing around with hidden traps and get visible!
Now you know from all my posts so far that I am from huge family of puss cats! Just so happens that I have Uncle (UK side of family) who lives somewhere in Bolton area. In fact - his grandkids go to that school. Now John may correct my Uncle if he is wrong as this is complete "hearsay"- but my Uncle confirms that Chorley New Road has always been a speed trap fave from early days of motoring. Nice wide road - the whole length from Bolton Centre to Horwich/Adlington where it joins A6. According to my Uncle (who lives on Chorley New Road) one of the accidents John is talking about was caused by dense fog! Another by a drunk driver. One case of child too eager to get to that lovely school and her Papa dropped her off, and she charged across the road without looking into a car! He thinks the police themselves were involved in another - one of those car chases! Uncle TC and EX-COP says accidents were along entire length of this road and certainly further than 2 miles of this camera - which, incidentally, he is not disputing as incorrect site! We are merely questioning accuracy - especially since Uncle lives on the road - not that far from the school, agrees there have been accidents but not that close together! In any case the camera (pre Manchester Scam Pratnership) has been there for at least 3 years to my own knowledge since I have in fact driven past it when visiting Uncle.
As for St Peter's Way...that slip road at Green Lane is so short - it is dangerous. The Gatso is actually positioned on the A666 itself before the slip road joins A666 - and presumably this is to slow traffic to 50mph before the slip road mergings. (Not really that helpful on a fast road - but presumably the logic.) The road had nasty accident much longer than 4 years ago in thick fog, and has had some suicides bids from various bridges. In direction - M60 - Gatso is half hidden in some trees just as M/way signs come into view of driver who then wellies up to 70mph and gets pinged! (Except everyone knows it is there after the local paper made a song and dance over it!!)
Of the other scams in Bolton area - opinion from those who have seen them (Uncle and a couple of the other cousins) who occasionally post here and elsewhere, is that they are revenue raisers.
Manchester is recent scammer, and things have got noticeably tighter. Some roads in South Manchester already been downgraded 40 to 30mph, and talivan was there just 5 working days later!
Just read his post on another thread - and this guy's a BiB - I think! But John does say he thinks scams have gone OTT on another thread - the Leics one!!
Most people know from all my various rantings that I am from family who take pride in comfortable, very safe driving, and whilst not condoning OTT speeding will admit that there have been very occasional just over drifts which every one -even the police and even you, yourself, John, will make! I do not agree that people's licences should be bruised for that, nor do I believe road safety measures revolve around hidden talivans (one of which parked itself in my garden the other morning!!), concealed Gatsos and such like. You want to make folk slow down, save lives - then stop prat@arsing around with hidden traps and get visible!
Now you know from all my posts so far that I am from huge family of puss cats! Just so happens that I have Uncle (UK side of family) who lives somewhere in Bolton area. In fact - his grandkids go to that school. Now John may correct my Uncle if he is wrong as this is complete "hearsay"- but my Uncle confirms that Chorley New Road has always been a speed trap fave from early days of motoring. Nice wide road - the whole length from Bolton Centre to Horwich/Adlington where it joins A6. According to my Uncle (who lives on Chorley New Road) one of the accidents John is talking about was caused by dense fog! Another by a drunk driver. One case of child too eager to get to that lovely school and her Papa dropped her off, and she charged across the road without looking into a car! He thinks the police themselves were involved in another - one of those car chases! Uncle TC and EX-COP says accidents were along entire length of this road and certainly further than 2 miles of this camera - which, incidentally, he is not disputing as incorrect site! We are merely questioning accuracy - especially since Uncle lives on the road - not that far from the school, agrees there have been accidents but not that close together! In any case the camera (pre Manchester Scam Pratnership) has been there for at least 3 years to my own knowledge since I have in fact driven past it when visiting Uncle.
As for St Peter's Way...that slip road at Green Lane is so short - it is dangerous. The Gatso is actually positioned on the A666 itself before the slip road joins A666 - and presumably this is to slow traffic to 50mph before the slip road mergings. (Not really that helpful on a fast road - but presumably the logic.) The road had nasty accident much longer than 4 years ago in thick fog, and has had some suicides bids from various bridges. In direction - M60 - Gatso is half hidden in some trees just as M/way signs come into view of driver who then wellies up to 70mph and gets pinged! (Except everyone knows it is there after the local paper made a song and dance over it!!)
Of the other scams in Bolton area - opinion from those who have seen them (Uncle and a couple of the other cousins) who occasionally post here and elsewhere
, is that they are revenue raisers. Manchester is recent scammer, and things have got noticeably tighter. Some roads in South Manchester already been downgraded 40 to 30mph, and talivan was there just 5 working days later!
john robson said:
One of the RTA's was at the junct Chorley new tudor ave m/cycle high speed, through red ATS and into side of car, next 2 cars racing again high speed and int stone gatepost, next M/cycle again high speed and into car doing U turn, most recent was pedestrian, just past Beaumont road
Bein' "contrary!"
again! Uncle remembers the bike at the lights - but may have been on hols when the others happened! But people do not dispute that this road has always had "history"!
"S/cams" at Tudor Ave/Bolton School been there for long time - and are signed as well from before Pratnership days! Motorcycles, acc Uncle - ex senior traf pol/trainer in (his words
) "good old days when Pandas were Pandas and Patrol Cars were Patrol Cars and both were everywhere!", have always been problem on this road - probably because of road leading up to Rivington! But this incidents sound definitely of the reckless type, drink may even have been factor here as well in case of the "racers", and again we seem to see more pretzels of this ilk you all started to over-rely on PC Gatso - which can only record speed and not these OTT cases. Appreciate that trafpols cannot be omnipresent on the roads - but less trafpols and more Gatsos seem to be causing more pretzels to indulge in such dangerous practices!
This just sent to the paper
Dear Sir
I few facts to correct the twaddle from Emma Reynolds, an employee of the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership:
Road Fatalities in Lancashire, with one of the highest concentrations of speed cameras in Britian, rose from 66 to 88 (33%) last year and the 3 year rolling average is now rising for the first time for 40 years.
Road deaths, far from being the largest killer of children, is in fact responsible for 2.9% of deaths up to 14, or 9.2% from 1 to 14. Even if we accept that the lie that "one third of accidents are caused by inappropriate speed" (Durham Police say it is 3% not 33%) that makes it 0.93% and 3.1% respectively - but if we then factor in the well established reality that 2/3 of accidents due to inappopriate speed are nevertheless within the speed limit and therefore outside the influence of speed cameras, the numbers fall again to 0.03 and 1%.
That means that of the 151 child deaths aged 1 to 14 in Britain in 1999, about 2 were due to driving in excess of the speed limit - though given such small numbers the patterns are subject to large random variation.
To put child deaths in perspective, in 1900 when we relied on horse transport, and as a consequence sufferered from innumerable diseases carried by flies that lived in the manure that covered most city streets, 136,000 children died before their first birthday. The figure now is 3,500 - vastly lower because of the vast improvements to the way we live, few of which would have been possible without the motor car.
Compared to the single figures of children who die on our roads due to speeds in excess of the speed limit, 175,000 children are aborted legally each year, 5000 die before birth because of mothers who smoke, 3,500 die from a variety of causes (as above) and 1600 die from 1 to 14 - 80 to 80% of natural causes and diseases.
Perhaps worst of all, our hospitals kill about 60,000 patients every year - 150 a day and 10% of all deaths - due to failures of hygiene, food poisoning, medical errors of all sorts - albeit their deaths are normally recorded as being due to the problems that took them into hospital in the first place, not the misadventure that killed them.
Given that many of those are undoubtedly childred and pro rata, allowing for their relatively healthy condition as children - are likely to number around 5,000 children or 15 a day, compared to less than that number in a year on the roads, the most effective way Ms. Reynolds and her colleagues could help to cut child deaths would be to resign, grab buckets, mops and disinfectant and head for the nearest hospital.
On their way there they might reflect that, even at 70mph on the M6, their risk of imminent death is around 1,000 times lower, per hour, that being a patient.
Finally - the average increaase in road deaths in the 16 areas for 2003 annouced so far is 9% - which, if matched across the country, represents 160 more deaths, almost matching the increase in cameras.
Enough is enough.
Yours sincerely
Idris Francis
I have the data to confirm all of the above.
You may be aware of my High Court appeal last Tuesday, lost, on the question of whether S172 forms must be signed.
Dear Sir
I few facts to correct the twaddle from Emma Reynolds, an employee of the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership:
Road Fatalities in Lancashire, with one of the highest concentrations of speed cameras in Britian, rose from 66 to 88 (33%) last year and the 3 year rolling average is now rising for the first time for 40 years.
Road deaths, far from being the largest killer of children, is in fact responsible for 2.9% of deaths up to 14, or 9.2% from 1 to 14. Even if we accept that the lie that "one third of accidents are caused by inappropriate speed" (Durham Police say it is 3% not 33%) that makes it 0.93% and 3.1% respectively - but if we then factor in the well established reality that 2/3 of accidents due to inappopriate speed are nevertheless within the speed limit and therefore outside the influence of speed cameras, the numbers fall again to 0.03 and 1%.
That means that of the 151 child deaths aged 1 to 14 in Britain in 1999, about 2 were due to driving in excess of the speed limit - though given such small numbers the patterns are subject to large random variation.
To put child deaths in perspective, in 1900 when we relied on horse transport, and as a consequence sufferered from innumerable diseases carried by flies that lived in the manure that covered most city streets, 136,000 children died before their first birthday. The figure now is 3,500 - vastly lower because of the vast improvements to the way we live, few of which would have been possible without the motor car.
Compared to the single figures of children who die on our roads due to speeds in excess of the speed limit, 175,000 children are aborted legally each year, 5000 die before birth because of mothers who smoke, 3,500 die from a variety of causes (as above) and 1600 die from 1 to 14 - 80 to 80% of natural causes and diseases.
Perhaps worst of all, our hospitals kill about 60,000 patients every year - 150 a day and 10% of all deaths - due to failures of hygiene, food poisoning, medical errors of all sorts - albeit their deaths are normally recorded as being due to the problems that took them into hospital in the first place, not the misadventure that killed them.
Given that many of those are undoubtedly childred and pro rata, allowing for their relatively healthy condition as children - are likely to number around 5,000 children or 15 a day, compared to less than that number in a year on the roads, the most effective way Ms. Reynolds and her colleagues could help to cut child deaths would be to resign, grab buckets, mops and disinfectant and head for the nearest hospital.
On their way there they might reflect that, even at 70mph on the M6, their risk of imminent death is around 1,000 times lower, per hour, that being a patient.
Finally - the average increaase in road deaths in the 16 areas for 2003 annouced so far is 9% - which, if matched across the country, represents 160 more deaths, almost matching the increase in cameras.
Enough is enough.
Yours sincerely
Idris Francis
I have the data to confirm all of the above.
You may be aware of my High Court appeal last Tuesday, lost, on the question of whether S172 forms must be signed.
Absolutely excellent reply. That should be sent to all the papers/media.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff