alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Up to your usual standard jack, containing nothing that adds to the argument. Go and play with your Apple, leave the arguing to those with a few more brain cells, there's a good lad.

neil-h

Nothing quite like shirking responsibility. If the public spent more time DRIVING properly in properly maintained vehicles then we'd have far less accidents.

Felix.

Its yours that are becoming more laughable - your 40mph truck scenario was a peach...

And you still haven't given a link to the dodgy sites that you go on to get your figures, i don't think ROSPA fall into that category some how

And where does it say that if you were not the driver - then you have to prove it? And where's the bullying involved in that? And what menaces? I've answered these before, but you keep firing them back a few pages later.

Re-look at the NIP that was posted on here a few pages back and the post that went with it.


This was your suggestion - to just fine the registered keeper if it can't be proven who was driving. You said above "I keep posting suggestions" - yes you do, and they clearly won't work.

And is catching a speeding motorist any safer than catching a speeding biker? Or are you now not wanting more traffic police on the road pulling people over.


Yes - and I have said this before. Many, many factors influence traffic accidents. But the main cause of the injuries is speed. Increase the speed and you increase the injury potential. Re-look at your truck T boning the stationery car.

Force = Mass x Acceleration. Newtons second law i believe. Increase your acceleration, you increases the force.

A variety of factors will cause and influence accidents, but the injuries involved will be as a result of the Force implied onto a body which is directly proportional to Acceleration.

Or is Mr Newton involved in your scam conspiracy theory too


I do police PROPERLY - but i deal with the other 99% of the public's problems other than speeding and so do the rest of the guys & gals on the shifts. And the work i do is PROPER work and i have never been involved in any speed offences what so ever

And so far your only suggestion on policing PROPERLY is to just fine the registered keeper if the driver can not be proved.

Martin2005

Don't understand why you're bothering to argue with the silly old goat. He's never wrong, always rude, and usually makes himself look stupid.

hodgy0_2

precisely

especially when he could spending his time sitting in a parked up unmarked police car catching speeding motorists

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Oh, the irony...and from Mr "No it doesn't!" himself.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Do you, or do you not, dispute that being T-boned by a 44 tonne truck at 40 mph, even if you, yourself were at a standstill, is worse than being sideswiped with minimum contact by a car weighing 1.5 tonnes doing 60mph?

There's your "speed kills" mantra proved wrong right away.

and to say that if cars weren't moving no accidents would happen, so it must be the speed wot does it....just daft.

http://www.lingula.org.uk/wordpress/...f-road-safety/

From the above. Rather different to the scammers point of view, eh? But, of course, YOURS must be right.


I don't need to look again. As I said at the time, that was an example of a first contact letter, asking if you were driving. It's when you respond no and I don't know who was that the nastiness starts. Check if you don't believe me.


Nope...not unless you are trying to promote the idea that the only safe way to travel is not to travel? It's not just speed, and speed is only a factor in 14% of cases.
The car in my scenario is stationary, yet receives worse damage than one doing 60mph. Simple? Apparently not, because we are going to be pedantic and state that if you aren't moving you can't get injured. Or that the slower you are moving, the less your injuries..patently wrong in my above scenario.



AND WE ARE THERE!!! Ladies and gentlemen, felix has seen the light. Yes, that's exactly what I want, Patrol officers that can ALSO catch people doing other things more dangerous than speeding, can allow for conditions, can educate because of conditions etc etc etc. That's EXACTLY what I want, and yet the easy route you and yours are taking and seemingly advocating, is giving government an excuse to have LESS patrol cars on the road..."It's OK, because we catch people speeding..." NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
And you are condoning it.
Tim4e and time again I've said I neither speed, nor condone it, but IF we have to police it...and seemingly we do, lets do it properly and lets NOT tell lies about how it's a huge factor, how it kills, how we catch bikers and how important it is.



Oh dear, back to school. You've either not understood the difference between acceleration and velocity, or chosen to ignore, or try and fudge it.


Your formula is correct, but acceleration being the rate of change of velocity, shows that my truck t-bone vs car side swipe scenario ain't quite as daft as you tried to make out.

Sorry, your idea is a fail. I suggest you read up on both velocity and acceleration



So you say......except you seem to have an endless list of statistics about speeding, many of which come, suspiciously, from so-called safety camera partnerships.
If you ARE a proper policeman, (IS there such a thing any more???), then to what do YOU attribute the falling esteem in which you are held, and the way the Daily Fail hates you all?



Actually, it wasn't. It was ONE part of my trying to get you lot to do your job properly and catch everyone speeding who IS speeding, not cherry-pick the car driver because he's an easy target.
Think about it, eh?

neil-h

What you've done there is a trick often used by the average politician, if all else fails move the goal posts to suit. As someone with a science background I'd have thought you'd know that drawing a conclusion based on results with multiple variables is at best difficult and worst pointless.

If we keep everything else the same and vary only the speed, simple physics dictates the faster vehicle has more energy and thus will cause more damage in a collision. You can't try and argue it if you want but you canny change the laws of physics captain.

JackClark

I'm going nowhere, I've only seen one other member so in need of help, he's got medication in the end, you should change yours. Nobody, not one person has agreed with you, not a single person shares your view, does that not flick a switch?

Felix.

You can't change the variables of a set scenario to prove a point....

The scenario should compare being T-boned by a truck doing 40mph against a stationary car – compared to a being T-boned by a truck doing 70mph against a stationary car and compare the injury difference.

Or being sideswiped with minimum contact by a car weighing 1.5 tonnes doing 60mph, compared to being sideswiped with minimum contact by a car weighing 1.5 tonnes doing 100mph.

Not a mixture of both.

your basing your facts on this web site..... www.lingula.org.uk

A bloke in Oxford with a degree in computer science and geology who compares his website to …."A family of inarticulate brachiopod molluscs which has changed little for over 550Ma"

And even spells "inarticulate" wrong on his title page!!!!

That’s ACCIDENTS not INJURIES. I have never said that speed is the main factor of ACCIDENTS and a whole host of other factors will cause ACCIDENTS. That said 14% is quite high as a factor since there are so many other factors. But INJURIES will increase with increasing speeds.

Read this as a quick over view of what causes accidents:

https://seriousaccidents.com/legal-a...car-accidents/

I take it he's not a car driver.

If the car has "broken heavily" I suggest he was going to fast for that stretch of road, hasn't seen the speed signs and their observation skills are as such negative. If he is that complacent about observing signs that he needs to brake heavily, I would not like to see him avoid a hazard such as a child wandering into the road. And if the cars behind have to brake heavily, they are also driving too fast and too close to the car infront. And driving like that will cause more ACCIDENTS (poor observation, unable to negotiate the car in front etc etc) but the faster the car will be travelling the more INJURIES will occur.

And if you can't drive a car unless your eyes are glued to the speedo, then you shouldn't really be on the road. You glance at the speedo, in the same way that you check for warning lights on the dashboard and check you rear view mirrors). You should be able to hold a car at a set speed between these times whether your going up or down hills. If you can't, you need to be taking the bus and let a professional driver do it.

If there is a "wave of congestion" then you will not be slowing for the speed camera? And why do you go well below the speed limit to pass the camera – why not just go at the speed limit for that road

The nastiness...?

My mate asked if he could look at the photo – as he could not be sure if it was him or his wife. He was told "sure – pop down and have a look". He did and saw it was him – where is the nastiness?

No – you have used two scenarios with different speeds – As Neil-h states, you have moved the goalposts for each scenario and changed the variable to prove your point. Which, hence, cannot be proven.



Hooray – something we agree on. More cops and more cars

In an ideal world we can have a traffic car parked up at set point with a queue of another 10-15 traffic cars behind that one. When an offence is seen, the patrol car moves of and the one behind takes its place. (so people could be reported for speeding, tyres, lights, water bottles – we could give each car a roadside MOT and then do the same for the driver). Then once everything is sorted and signed, the traffic car moves back to its original position and join the queue.

But this is not an ideal world – we were stretched enough before and since the cuts we have now been decimated. If 1% of our involvement is for traffic offences, then the remaining 99% is the jobs which response and neighbourhood policing do. And our numbers are decimated too. We have never had anywhere near the numbers on our shifts that we need and the jobs coming in out way the number of cops. And this aint gonna change soon.

And we don't condone this – we moan and moan and moan, but the government don't listen. What next – strike? And compromise the very people we are trying to help? It’s the same across the board with public service, we also now take up the slack for the ambulance service and the fire brigade.


No, we are on about acceleration – ie increasing velocity and the effect it has on force. If there is a change in speed, direction, or both (as it is a vector quantity) then the object has a changing velocity and is said to be undergoing an acceleration. In this scenario, the only forces that can act on a body is either gravity or acceleration. This is part of Einstein's theory of relativity.

Unless you are now doubting Newton and Einstein and believe both are part of "the scam"?

I suggest you read up on both velocity, acceleration and Einstein's theory of relativity.


We are back to the main title of the thread – this is I believe the Daily Fail not having a clue about what goes on at an incident such as a cot death. Readers then believe the story hook, line and sinker and come out with "why didn't they do this, why didn't they do that..." Using all the hindsight available to them in the world


So how is prosecuting a person for a speeding offence the correct thing to do if they were sat at home at the time. No matter if they were driving a car, bus, truck bike? This surely goes against the 'innocent until proven guilty' ethic

Felix.

Did you find this yet Alcazar?

stipete75

Amazing 10 pages and the vast majority of sheeple still believe revenue cameras save lives on the roads. Next you will be saying it wasn't a directed energy weapon but 2 planes that vapourised 1.250.000 million tonnes of wtc towers to dust.

jonc

I'd rather stick with "revenue cameras" than your crackpot theories regarding WTC. I know X-Files has returned to our TV's, but in just in case you're not aware, it's not a factual documentary programme.

hodgy0_2

well I did link to several studies that seem to suggest speed cameras reduce accidents and save lives

of course there is a financial / ROI element - but that is no different from anything in life


aahh Dr Judy Wood PHD

of "Where did the Towers go" fame

her theory is that they were destroyed in a process called "dustification" by space beams aka "directed energy beams"

evidence -- bah who needs that when you have a youtube video

stipete75

Ah so you have done some research on the subject. Her theories hold some substance and seem plausible looking at and listening to her evidence. The dustification would corroborate the towers falling at free fall speed, zero resistance! There is a video, I'll try and find it of the steel gurders disappearing in free fall.

hodgy0_2

lol, she has zero evidence

she is clearly a fruitcake fantasist

but sometimes it is fun watching the "no planners" (the planes were clearly CGI wtf) argue with the "space beamers" who in turn argue with the "whole thing is a hoax and no one died"

I am afraid all simply lumped in with flat earthers and young earth creationist - of which i admit there are an increasing number :-(

they actually make the controlled demolition idiots look sane

all it proves is anyone can make anything believable with a video, some crank maths and a PHD

Martin2005

Oh God.

BTW, has anyone on this thread claiming that cameras are there purely to generate revenue, come up with how much revenue is actually generated, without it this is an argument with little merit?

neil-h

Is the fact Alcazar said so not enough?

jonc

The irony is it just shows how gullible those that believe in this bollox are.

stipete75

Ditto, coming right back at ya.
With regard to WTC 7 more Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation. You are becoming the minority.

stipete75

People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in,
governments
institutions
mainstream news networks
doctors
scientists,
or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

Whereas a normal, intelligent person would raise commonsense questions about information they receive from all sources, the Gullible Mind wholly accepts virtually any information from sources that occupy the role of apparent authority in society.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...universe71.htm

JackClark

The majority of Americans are idiots. Conspiritards boil my ****.

Martin2005

Time for a fact check I think...

Have you got any evidence to support this claim?

Martin2005

But you don't 'raise common-sense questions', you view everything as a lie and part of a conspiracy then going looking for anything that supports that stand point.

hodgy0_2

I am afraid the US is religiously pursuing an Anti Science agenda

we have several presidential candidates who do not believe in Evolution - some seem to support teaching theories that involve the earth being 6000 years old

they present faked graphs from conspiracy sites in congressional hearings

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5184931.html

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ange-us-survey


it may well explain why, as a country they are slowly going down the sh1tter

jonc

Look up "confirmation bias", without it all conspiritard theories fall apart.

dpb

Nice town Weymouth , sailed to there many times

I think living there though , well , youd need some kind hobby to pass the time away ...

stipete75

Murderers, rapists and pedos boil my **** but what ever floats your boat I suppose

stipete75

Great town, comes to life in the summer months, plenty of hobbies to pass he time away, not sailing though, sounds to exciting for me.

stipete75

http://rethink911.org/docs/ReThink91...essRelease.pdf