M.A.D BBC1 last night
18 November 2003, 01:24 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before i start this is my personal opinion and not aimed at any person or organisation (bet you mods are sweating!!)
I watched the program on BBC 1 last night hoping to see a fair arguement with people justifying their repsective positions, i was very dissappointed to see the BBC just jumping on the band wagon and blaming speeding motorist for being dangerous and the sole reason people are killed on our roads.
my main rant points are about the following issues
The police officer in the documentary was upset about the way people were damaging his camera's, when questioned why the death toll had not dramatically reduced with the increse in cameras he said "well we must not have them in the right locations" THATS WHY PEOLPE ARE UPSET!! you are catching motorists speeding by underhand camera positioning and not putting them where they will/could effect death tolls - now i don't condone vandalism, but i dont agree with the police positioning of cameras, my idea of a speed camera is that it is visible and before the accident black spot, the motorist sees the camera, it reminds him to check his speed, they make any corrective action and then travel at a safe speed through the danger area, if a camera catches someone it is obviously positioned in such a way that it has not done this task, or they are going very fast and are then unable to stop, they can then be educated on stopping distances and reaction times and shown a more responsible driving manner.
Next rant
the death toll amongst bikers is the only reason we have not seen an over all decrease in deaths, there was no mention of the increased numbers of bikers, and stats show bikes are not as safe as cars, therefore a larger population of people in a increased risk catagory.
and another thing
some toe rag vandalised a school(hypothetically), same charge of vandalism, bet he doesn't get 3 years from the crown court, in fact i have heard of lesser charges handed out to people who have assaulted other people, or mugged old grannies, now i care more about peoples safety and being able to feel safe from violence than replacable property
And onto the scooby bit
i did notice the use of unmarked scoobs as a tool to catch the speeding bikers, now if the officer is driving at 100+mph in an unmarked car, how are the public expected to help him without his lights on siren on, if speeding is so dangerous then the police should be protecting other road users from being hurt by advertising they are travelling at excessive speed, i have noticed from my own car that if you pull out quickly and close up on someone they can be shocked when the see you filling their rear veiw mirror and can do stupid things, so Joe public in a mondeo would get a shock when a dark blue scoob roars up behind them especially as they have not passed it as he was hiding away trying to catch speeders, personally i think its a recipe for disater.
next bit (near the end)
The child hit by the car
now i am not heartless and dont see people getting hurt as good, but, people need to help themselves, its not the car drivers fault, the child ran from behind a hedge between 2 parked cars, get the green cross code back in action, when i was at school it was pushed down our throats and i never heard of any kids at my school being hit by cars, then look at the hedge, if it was further back fomm the road the driver would have been able to see more.
Speeding doesn't kill, it is a catalyst which makes crashes more severe, yes, but educate people!! ther eis some statistic that most people killed in 30 zones are within a short distance of a crossing, how are drivers expected to watch for people running out in the road when they are expected to be on the crossing??!!
I wish we could see some sense as its bad roads and poor signing that kill not speed, if every one takes some responisbility for themselves and stops blaming car drivers or normal law abiding motorists solely for accidents, i.e using crossings and not running out, driving responsibly in town areas,catching dangerous drivers who are drunk or in unsafe cars then we will see lives saved
thanks for taking the time to read my essay!
I watched the program on BBC 1 last night hoping to see a fair arguement with people justifying their repsective positions, i was very dissappointed to see the BBC just jumping on the band wagon and blaming speeding motorist for being dangerous and the sole reason people are killed on our roads.
my main rant points are about the following issues
The police officer in the documentary was upset about the way people were damaging his camera's, when questioned why the death toll had not dramatically reduced with the increse in cameras he said "well we must not have them in the right locations" THATS WHY PEOLPE ARE UPSET!! you are catching motorists speeding by underhand camera positioning and not putting them where they will/could effect death tolls - now i don't condone vandalism, but i dont agree with the police positioning of cameras, my idea of a speed camera is that it is visible and before the accident black spot, the motorist sees the camera, it reminds him to check his speed, they make any corrective action and then travel at a safe speed through the danger area, if a camera catches someone it is obviously positioned in such a way that it has not done this task, or they are going very fast and are then unable to stop, they can then be educated on stopping distances and reaction times and shown a more responsible driving manner.
Next rant
the death toll amongst bikers is the only reason we have not seen an over all decrease in deaths, there was no mention of the increased numbers of bikers, and stats show bikes are not as safe as cars, therefore a larger population of people in a increased risk catagory.
and another thing
some toe rag vandalised a school(hypothetically), same charge of vandalism, bet he doesn't get 3 years from the crown court, in fact i have heard of lesser charges handed out to people who have assaulted other people, or mugged old grannies, now i care more about peoples safety and being able to feel safe from violence than replacable property
And onto the scooby bit
i did notice the use of unmarked scoobs as a tool to catch the speeding bikers, now if the officer is driving at 100+mph in an unmarked car, how are the public expected to help him without his lights on siren on, if speeding is so dangerous then the police should be protecting other road users from being hurt by advertising they are travelling at excessive speed, i have noticed from my own car that if you pull out quickly and close up on someone they can be shocked when the see you filling their rear veiw mirror and can do stupid things, so Joe public in a mondeo would get a shock when a dark blue scoob roars up behind them especially as they have not passed it as he was hiding away trying to catch speeders, personally i think its a recipe for disater.
next bit (near the end)
The child hit by the car
now i am not heartless and dont see people getting hurt as good, but, people need to help themselves, its not the car drivers fault, the child ran from behind a hedge between 2 parked cars, get the green cross code back in action, when i was at school it was pushed down our throats and i never heard of any kids at my school being hit by cars, then look at the hedge, if it was further back fomm the road the driver would have been able to see more.
Speeding doesn't kill, it is a catalyst which makes crashes more severe, yes, but educate people!! ther eis some statistic that most people killed in 30 zones are within a short distance of a crossing, how are drivers expected to watch for people running out in the road when they are expected to be on the crossing??!!
I wish we could see some sense as its bad roads and poor signing that kill not speed, if every one takes some responisbility for themselves and stops blaming car drivers or normal law abiding motorists solely for accidents, i.e using crossings and not running out, driving responsibly in town areas,catching dangerous drivers who are drunk or in unsafe cars then we will see lives saved
thanks for taking the time to read my essay!
18 November 2003, 01:34 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Child hit by car:
The whole point of that episode is that the car driver was doing 20mph and the child survived...moral is keep the speed down in situations like that (inner city/village/residential areas) where unexpected things like kids running out WILL occur.
Speed in that situation WILL kill, children WILL run out regardless of how much we drill the green cross code or road awareness into them.
Rgds
Chuck
The whole point of that episode is that the car driver was doing 20mph and the child survived...moral is keep the speed down in situations like that (inner city/village/residential areas) where unexpected things like kids running out WILL occur.
Speed in that situation WILL kill, children WILL run out regardless of how much we drill the green cross code or road awareness into them.
Rgds
Chuck
18 November 2003, 01:37 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When an accident takes place, there's always more than one root cause. Speed is easy to quantify so takes the hit (no pun intended).
What gets me is the number of pedestrian/zebra crossings placed just after/before busy roundabouts - asking for trouble.
What gets me is the number of pedestrian/zebra crossings placed just after/before busy roundabouts - asking for trouble.
18 November 2003, 01:38 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 17,732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very fair criticism IMHO - I thought it was too heavily biased towards the police and would liked to have seen interviews with the AA, RAC and ABD most of all!
18 November 2003, 01:42 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
It always amazes me how many people try & cross busy roads within 10-15yds of marked crossings, if the lazy ***** get hit dodging through moving traffic, you can be damned sure it won't be them being charged[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Trending Topics
18 November 2003, 01:52 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh! RayC, how phrophetic your words are! Truth is, they arent, and there are a hell of a lot of peeps out here who feel exactly the same as you do on all scores (myself included). The big problem is that those who are in a position to make the changes wont, cos they aint interested. This I beleive, is why some cross the line to vandalism. When I picked up my baby from the clinic (Scooby dealer) 3-months ago, I had been till that point been continuously lectured and told that it was only a matter of time before I lost my license. I also reckon scoobs are picked on by coppers cos of what they are and of what they are cabaple of. I drive accordingly with my little road angel watching over my shoulder. I have the edge, and drive accordingly cos I am sick at the hipocrisy surrounding almost all traffic-related legislation / calming measures.
Your point on kids and responsibility.
Again man, 10/10. Me not that old but I was always taught dangers associated with roads and acted accordingly. The huge problem with everything today is that no one WANTS to take responsibility for anything they do. Thats why we sue a big cheese when we have an accident cos if they had o done blah blah, it wouldnt have happened. 99% of the time I would say bullsh*t, you put yerself in that situation. If a young kid jumps out in front of me from behind a car and we collide, is it all my fault? Or do we say "hey, scum bag parent, why doesnt your kid know about the green cross code", or "hey, scum bag parent, why do you let your young kid roam the streets unsupervised?".
I give my car a good blat as much as the next guy / gal, but intelligence and experience tells me when it isnt safe to do it (i.e. any built up area, roads I dont know, dangerous bends, in the rain, fog snow etc.) And why is this? Back in a big circle to your closing remmark - EDUCATION. If you are lacking in awareness of the dangers of the road and what damage your car can do to life, limb or property, you will disregard it and your day will come to regret it.
You are spot on RayC.
Your point on kids and responsibility.
Again man, 10/10. Me not that old but I was always taught dangers associated with roads and acted accordingly. The huge problem with everything today is that no one WANTS to take responsibility for anything they do. Thats why we sue a big cheese when we have an accident cos if they had o done blah blah, it wouldnt have happened. 99% of the time I would say bullsh*t, you put yerself in that situation. If a young kid jumps out in front of me from behind a car and we collide, is it all my fault? Or do we say "hey, scum bag parent, why doesnt your kid know about the green cross code", or "hey, scum bag parent, why do you let your young kid roam the streets unsupervised?".
I give my car a good blat as much as the next guy / gal, but intelligence and experience tells me when it isnt safe to do it (i.e. any built up area, roads I dont know, dangerous bends, in the rain, fog snow etc.) And why is this? Back in a big circle to your closing remmark - EDUCATION. If you are lacking in awareness of the dangers of the road and what damage your car can do to life, limb or property, you will disregard it and your day will come to regret it.
You are spot on RayC.
18 November 2003, 02:02 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I think the sentence is so high because it was attempted arson which is a very serious crime.
I was knocked down right out side my house when i was 6 (1973
), ive allways been carfull where kids may jump out (like i did), ive also had a very close call when i was doing about 15-20 mph when a girl (about 9) did it to me, luckily i just stopped in time (and she stepped back 1 step)
There should be a speed camara outside every school, beyond that it should be just accident blackspots.
Simon
I think the sentence is so high because it was attempted arson which is a very serious crime.
I was knocked down right out side my house when i was 6 (1973
), ive allways been carfull where kids may jump out (like i did), ive also had a very close call when i was doing about 15-20 mph when a girl (about 9) did it to me, luckily i just stopped in time (and she stepped back 1 step)There should be a speed camara outside every school, beyond that it should be just accident blackspots.
Simon
18 November 2003, 02:25 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeedy, this program was nothing but sensationalist rubbish. Had to lol at Dickie "Robot" Brunstrom trying to equate speed camera defacement with terrorism though, does the guy have no shame? 
BTW, the problem with schools isn't just speed. It's also cars (mainly those of parents) parking on the designated crossing areas while dropping off or picking up, thus causing the "kid runs out from behind parked car" scenario.
You're right, there should be a camera next to each one, but far from just detecting excessive speed (and IMO there's a good argument for having temporary 15-20mph speed limits outside schools at busy times), it should also automatically catch and fine any car that parks illegally.
At least that way if a kid does decide to run out onto the road, it won't be from behind a car, and thus you'll see him/her earlier, and have a crucial fraction of a second extra to react.
The points about parental responsibility (or lack of) are also equally well made. Unfortunately however, the current Government's nanny state mentality feels more comfortable with legislation than education, so they'd rather prosecute you for the consequences of someone else's bad parenting than encourage good parenting in the first place.
[Edited by greasemonkey - 11/18/2003 2:47:01 PM]
BTW, the problem with schools isn't just speed. It's also cars (mainly those of parents) parking on the designated crossing areas while dropping off or picking up, thus causing the "kid runs out from behind parked car" scenario.
You're right, there should be a camera next to each one, but far from just detecting excessive speed (and IMO there's a good argument for having temporary 15-20mph speed limits outside schools at busy times), it should also automatically catch and fine any car that parks illegally.
At least that way if a kid does decide to run out onto the road, it won't be from behind a car, and thus you'll see him/her earlier, and have a crucial fraction of a second extra to react.
The points about parental responsibility (or lack of) are also equally well made. Unfortunately however, the current Government's nanny state mentality feels more comfortable with legislation than education, so they'd rather prosecute you for the consequences of someone else's bad parenting than encourage good parenting in the first place.
[Edited by greasemonkey - 11/18/2003 2:47:01 PM]
18 November 2003, 02:37 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with pretty much all RayC said (though I too didnt actually see the programme in question) ..
However I am also in favour on 20mph speed limits in some areas ..
Driving up a small roads with parked cars on both sides makes me very nervous of children shorter than the bonnets they are stepping out from .... The very idea of that restricts me to 1st and 2nd gear ... and driving like my gran on a particularly slow Sunday drive ...
However I am also in favour on 20mph speed limits in some areas ..
Driving up a small roads with parked cars on both sides makes me very nervous of children shorter than the bonnets they are stepping out from .... The very idea of that restricts me to 1st and 2nd gear ... and driving like my gran on a particularly slow Sunday drive ...
18 November 2003, 02:44 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM,
Agreed totally, i pass a primary school on my way to work. What happend one morning just left me flabbergasted. Female with one child (about 8 ish) in an BIG BMW 'TRUCK' (X5?) pulled out of the new estate bulit next to the school (about 50yrds away) its about 20 houses estate drops child off (on the hatchings), reverses up school entrance (How much can you see behind in a truck like that?) and drives back to the estate.
BTW i was waiting in temp traffic lights before anyone wonders why i was outside the school for that long
Simon
Agreed totally, i pass a primary school on my way to work. What happend one morning just left me flabbergasted. Female with one child (about 8 ish) in an BIG BMW 'TRUCK' (X5?) pulled out of the new estate bulit next to the school (about 50yrds away) its about 20 houses estate drops child off (on the hatchings), reverses up school entrance (How much can you see behind in a truck like that?) and drives back to the estate.
BTW i was waiting in temp traffic lights before anyone wonders why i was outside the school for that long
Simon
18 November 2003, 03:07 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest ar$eholes IMO are the ones who say 0% kids die when hit at 10mph, 5% at 20mph, 50% at 30 mph and 80% at 40mph, etc. Why then are they happy for everyone to drive at 30mph, they should be campaigning for 10mph!
I'm surprised they haven't called for cars to be banned, then no-one would get killed by a car!
I'm surprised they haven't called for cars to be banned, then no-one would get killed by a car!
18 November 2003, 03:17 PM
#15
Used to work here!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Peterhead, Scotland
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over here (USA) they have 20mph zones outside every school during entry and exit times, if the lights are flashing it's a 20 zone otherwise it's a 30 (or 35)
Stuart
Stuart
18 November 2003, 03:50 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img][img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]What about collating our views and writing to the broadcasting complaints authority (sp?) and complaining about the obvious bias of the show and the lack of statistical data to back up the theories being bandied about. It was more like a propaganda political statement than an objective look at the whole situation.
I watched the show and I thought it was the biggest load of crap I have ever seen about speeding and traffic cameras. What’s needed is an unbiased and informative piece of investigative journalism, not some screaming leftie 'think of the children' gibberish.
The millions upon millions of ££s that are being spent on these cameras, and their effectiveness was not properly highlighted. What impact have these cameras had on ten years worth of operation? what millions have been spent on making these 'dangerous' roads safer by repairing them and proper traffic management?
From what I have gathered its mostly bikers that have been having accidents and losing their lives. Agreed, the lunatic behaviour of some of them is highly dangerous, but what the forward facing cameras? How will that catch a biker travelling at 90 mph standing on the 'saddle' or whatever they sit on.
And that plod chasing that biker. Apparently he was only going to give them a warning ‘til one sped off (bollo*cks). Then the guy he did chase nearly dies, admittedly he shouldn’t be doing stupid manoeuvres like that, but if was only a minor incident why try to turn it into a death chase?
If some tosser stole my car and burnt it, I doubt they would get 3 years for it either.
I watched the show and I thought it was the biggest load of crap I have ever seen about speeding and traffic cameras. What’s needed is an unbiased and informative piece of investigative journalism, not some screaming leftie 'think of the children' gibberish.
The millions upon millions of ££s that are being spent on these cameras, and their effectiveness was not properly highlighted. What impact have these cameras had on ten years worth of operation? what millions have been spent on making these 'dangerous' roads safer by repairing them and proper traffic management?
From what I have gathered its mostly bikers that have been having accidents and losing their lives. Agreed, the lunatic behaviour of some of them is highly dangerous, but what the forward facing cameras? How will that catch a biker travelling at 90 mph standing on the 'saddle' or whatever they sit on.
And that plod chasing that biker. Apparently he was only going to give them a warning ‘til one sped off (bollo*cks). Then the guy he did chase nearly dies, admittedly he shouldn’t be doing stupid manoeuvres like that, but if was only a minor incident why try to turn it into a death chase?
If some tosser stole my car and burnt it, I doubt they would get 3 years for it either.
18 November 2003, 04:40 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I missed it too due to power outages.[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Anyway, my point is that this whole speed kills campaign seems to be sinking in. I find that people in general are driving slower and slooowwwweeeerrrr these days. It used to be just old codgers and the odd imbicile. Now it seems that nearly everyone drives a minimal speeds for fear of speed traps, sometimes to the point of driving dangerously slowly.
Or perhaps CJD is spreading faster then we think.
UB
Anyway, my point is that this whole speed kills campaign seems to be sinking in. I find that people in general are driving slower and slooowwwweeeerrrr these days. It used to be just old codgers and the odd imbicile. Now it seems that nearly everyone drives a minimal speeds for fear of speed traps, sometimes to the point of driving dangerously slowly.
Or perhaps CJD is spreading faster then we think.
UB
18 November 2003, 07:05 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to know if the North Wales police are putting the same level of effort into investigating, for instance, house break-ins. IIRC there has been a continued movement upwards in many other types of crime within this force's area. Anyone who's had their home broken into will know what an unsettling and depressing experience it is.
What is definitely the case is that there has been a sharp decrease in prosecutions for other, more serious motor offences as the police switch increasingly to policing the roads by fixed camera.
Bottom-line is that the police are public servants & therefore ought to be accountable to us, the taxpayers. Why, therefore, do we have no say in what priorities they pursue??
Hugh
What is definitely the case is that there has been a sharp decrease in prosecutions for other, more serious motor offences as the police switch increasingly to policing the roads by fixed camera.
Bottom-line is that the police are public servants & therefore ought to be accountable to us, the taxpayers. Why, therefore, do we have no say in what priorities they pursue??
Hugh
18 November 2003, 11:19 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Police do what they like the sooner they are truly accountable the better. We need to make the Chief Constables get elected ever 3 years so they actually Target the crimes that people care about.
As to biased program I didn't see it but apparently is available on line so maybe I should watch it.
The reason that it is biased is that the Safety Camera partnerships have loads of Cash swilling around and employ PR people who are professional at spinning stories I am sure if it wasn't biased in their Favour they would have refused to appear on the show as they normally do to avoid difficult questions.
I think complaining about the program is the only way we could get some unbiased reporting. Some where somebody has posted the links to Points of View maybe some body else knows the one for the Broadcasting complaints authority as well then it is down to us to complain.
As to biased program I didn't see it but apparently is available on line so maybe I should watch it.
The reason that it is biased is that the Safety Camera partnerships have loads of Cash swilling around and employ PR people who are professional at spinning stories I am sure if it wasn't biased in their Favour they would have refused to appear on the show as they normally do to avoid difficult questions.
I think complaining about the program is the only way we could get some unbiased reporting. Some where somebody has posted the links to Points of View maybe some body else knows the one for the Broadcasting complaints authority as well then it is down to us to complain.
19 November 2003, 12:03 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidence of burglary is at a record high and burglary detection is at a record low in North Wales...
They may however have sucessfully prosecuted a few R1 pilots away from turning themselves into mince on the odd B road. Meanwhile the locals are starting to despise and distrespect the police - shrewd move Chief Con...
If a Gixer wants to risk mincing himself then let him - he's an adult and a stupid one at that. 99% of the time he will not hurt anyone else - let him just get on with it, his mum cry and then the other 99.9% of the local population can continue un-harrased and 'crime that matters to people' may have a better chance of being solved.
We used to hammer it about daily on GPZ's in North Wales - country living; so good for you and 'golly gosh where's my nanny' 'I'm still here to tell the tale too...
D
They may however have sucessfully prosecuted a few R1 pilots away from turning themselves into mince on the odd B road. Meanwhile the locals are starting to despise and distrespect the police - shrewd move Chief Con...
If a Gixer wants to risk mincing himself then let him - he's an adult and a stupid one at that. 99% of the time he will not hurt anyone else - let him just get on with it, his mum cry and then the other 99.9% of the local population can continue un-harrased and 'crime that matters to people' may have a better chance of being solved.
We used to hammer it about daily on GPZ's in North Wales - country living; so good for you and 'golly gosh where's my nanny' 'I'm still here to tell the tale too...
D
19 November 2003, 12:20 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Clanger wrote :
I give my car a good blat as much as the next guy / gal, but intelligence and experience tells me when it isnt safe to do it (i.e. any built up area, roads I dont know, dangerous bends, in the rain, fog snow etc.) And why is this? Back in a big circle to your closing remmark - EDUCATION. If you are lacking in awareness of the dangers of the road and what damage your car can do to life, limb or property, you will disregard it and your day will come to regret it.
Has it not been proven that MOST accidents happen on the roads you know? This is because of the fact that because you think you know the road well, you are more likely to concentrate less......
I would say (from personal experience) that giving your car a "good blat" is not safe at ANY time. You are propelling a 1.5 tonne vehicle at high speeds. You cannot prepare for the unexpected, be it a familiar road, an empty road, or wherever.
Your "education" is not complete until you realise that NOWHERE is safe Some places may be safER than others, but never SAFE.
[Edited by imlach - 11/19/2003 12:21:28 AM]
I give my car a good blat as much as the next guy / gal, but intelligence and experience tells me when it isnt safe to do it (i.e. any built up area, roads I dont know, dangerous bends, in the rain, fog snow etc.) And why is this? Back in a big circle to your closing remmark - EDUCATION. If you are lacking in awareness of the dangers of the road and what damage your car can do to life, limb or property, you will disregard it and your day will come to regret it.
Has it not been proven that MOST accidents happen on the roads you know? This is because of the fact that because you think you know the road well, you are more likely to concentrate less......
I would say (from personal experience) that giving your car a "good blat" is not safe at ANY time. You are propelling a 1.5 tonne vehicle at high speeds. You cannot prepare for the unexpected, be it a familiar road, an empty road, or wherever.
Your "education" is not complete until you realise that NOWHERE is safe
Some places may be safER than others, but never SAFE.[Edited by imlach - 11/19/2003 12:21:28 AM]
19 November 2003, 12:35 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a well known fact that 9 out of 10 Children are caused by Accidents 
Seriously, the ***** who wre bragging about doing 208 and also standing up on their saddles were beyond belief, and natural selection will sort them out. Not all bikers ride on the road like or make ridiculous claims like that. I feel like I've just been tarred by a very large brush
Seriously, the ***** who wre bragging about doing 208 and also standing up on their saddles were beyond belief, and natural selection will sort them out. Not all bikers ride on the road like or make ridiculous claims like that. I feel like I've just been tarred by a very large brush
19 November 2003, 03:21 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you believe the programme was biased and unfair then you should write and complain. It's no good whinging if you're not prepared to do anything about it.
You can complain at the following places:-
BBC Complaints
- but be specific as to what parts of the Producers Guidelines you think they failed to adhere to
"Speeding" thread on Points of Views BB
Broadcasting Standards Commission
Just remember you should try to stick to facts and point out where the the programme made claims or statements which cannot be substantiated. We don't really want a judgement made that the programme was fair as that would give ammunition to those who think the current policy is correct.
You can complain at the following places:-
BBC Complaints
- but be specific as to what parts of the Producers Guidelines you think they failed to adhere to
"Speeding" thread on Points of Views BB
Broadcasting Standards Commission
Just remember you should try to stick to facts and point out where the the programme made claims or statements which cannot be substantiated. We don't really want a judgement made that the programme was fair as that would give ammunition to those who think the current policy is correct.
19 November 2003, 12:37 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't see the programme either so I am also at a disadvantage. I think RayC made some very good points and I agree that the best and nost effective way is to deter motorists from speeding in dangerous areas by visual cues of one kind or another rather than to hide away to catch them especially on open roads in the country.
Les
Les
19 November 2003, 01:58 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reply finally posted on there (points of view):
The whole programme was more like a propaganda political statement than an objective look at the whole situation.
I watched the show and I thought it was the biggest load of nonsense I have ever seen about speeding and traffic cameras. What’s needed is an unbiased and informative piece of investigative journalism, not some screaming leftie 'think of the children' gibberish.
The millions upon millions of ££s that are being spent on these cameras, and their effectiveness was not properly highlighted. What impact have these cameras had on ten years worth of operation? what millions have been spent on making these 'dangerous' roads safer by repairing them and proper traffic management?
From what I have gathered there was a higher % of bikers having accidents and losing their lives. Agreed, the lunatic behaviour of some of them is highly dangerous, but why the forward facing cameras? How will that catch a biker travelling at 90 mph standing on the 'saddle' or whatever they sit on.
And that policeman chasing that biker. Apparently he was only going to give them a warning ‘til one sped off'. Then the guy he did chase nearly dies, admittedly he shouldn’t be doing stupid manoeuvres like that, but if was only a minor incident why try to turn it into a death chase?
If some youth stole my car and burnt it, I doubt they would get 3 years for it either. Im sure that with 50% of the public not reporting a crime against a speed camera there must be something wrong with the present policy on them.
Please find a new position for your presenter, preferably making space ships out of washing up liquid bottles on Blue Peter.
The whole programme was more like a propaganda political statement than an objective look at the whole situation.
I watched the show and I thought it was the biggest load of nonsense I have ever seen about speeding and traffic cameras. What’s needed is an unbiased and informative piece of investigative journalism, not some screaming leftie 'think of the children' gibberish.
The millions upon millions of ££s that are being spent on these cameras, and their effectiveness was not properly highlighted. What impact have these cameras had on ten years worth of operation? what millions have been spent on making these 'dangerous' roads safer by repairing them and proper traffic management?
From what I have gathered there was a higher % of bikers having accidents and losing their lives. Agreed, the lunatic behaviour of some of them is highly dangerous, but why the forward facing cameras? How will that catch a biker travelling at 90 mph standing on the 'saddle' or whatever they sit on.
And that policeman chasing that biker. Apparently he was only going to give them a warning ‘til one sped off'. Then the guy he did chase nearly dies, admittedly he shouldn’t be doing stupid manoeuvres like that, but if was only a minor incident why try to turn it into a death chase?
If some youth stole my car and burnt it, I doubt they would get 3 years for it either. Im sure that with 50% of the public not reporting a crime against a speed camera there must be something wrong with the present policy on them.
Please find a new position for your presenter, preferably making space ships out of washing up liquid bottles on Blue Peter.
19 November 2003, 02:25 PM
#30
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re
Meanwhile the locals are starting to despise and disrespect the police –
And isn’t that the worst part of this whole camera/scamera debate? It seem to me that for the
Sake of ‘just’ money the police are willing to trade in the trust of the public for being viewed
As mobile tax collectors
Meanwhile the locals are starting to despise and disrespect the police –
And isn’t that the worst part of this whole camera/scamera debate? It seem to me that for the
Sake of ‘just’ money the police are willing to trade in the trust of the public for being viewed
As mobile tax collectors