What's he on about?
Discussion
quote:
www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_584651.html
never mind the speed cam warning , that guy should lay off the drugs
quote:Good job I checked before posting - I was just about to post that link!
www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_584651.html
What a
! I particularly like the fact that the comments attributed to him implicitly criticise the government for being "swayed by a vocal lobby of motorists angry that they were not given enough warning of speed cameras". Incredible! Obviously now that these comments have been made by a "public health specialist", the government can now continue to site their revenue cameras in optimum cash-gathering stealthed locations whilst they perform "more research into the effects of high visibility cameras".
Spin, spin, spin.
This topic appears to be also being discussed at www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=57&t=10111
quote:
On a slightly more serious note, how the hell did a fruitcake like this manage to get his views across in the media ??
Why can't we (as in the motoring masses, or I guess more specifically the ABD) do the same ??
Because we are not right on card carring drug taking advocates of the latest in religious fire and brimstone dogma, greens. Therefore we can't get jobs in the media or the think tanks or the civil service.
This particular C*** has no evidence for his his propaganda and is clearly commiting a crime against humanity because he supports ignoring the views of the many. He should be on trial in the Hague, not spwewing his shite in the media.
Scenario 1: Driver doing 40 in a 30 zone (he/she's always done it/driving for over 40 years without accident/keeping up with traffic etc...) goes past a 'safety camera' hidden behind a tree, get's zapped, five minutes later hits the little kid who's just run into the road and kills him.
Result: one dead kid, 3 points + fine and more statistics for the army of over paid government dangleberries to dream up short term solutions to.
Scenario 2: Same driver sees camera and slows down a bit. Still hits the kid.
Result: Kid get's a broken arm but won't be running into the road again, camera doesn't make any money and road/petrol/council tax goes up again.
Scanario 3: Driver has just done his/her 10 year re-test and has taken an advanced driving course offered free by the police (sponsored by petroleum companies/National Lottery/Insurance companies), kid has just done his green cross code (over the internet/taught by parents/community policeman).
Result: Your son or daughter crosses the road safely, saving the NHS/Insurance companies/police, millions.
Pick one,
Dave
Result: one dead kid, 3 points + fine and more statistics for the army of over paid government dangleberries to dream up short term solutions to.
Scenario 2: Same driver sees camera and slows down a bit. Still hits the kid.
Result: Kid get's a broken arm but won't be running into the road again, camera doesn't make any money and road/petrol/council tax goes up again.
Scanario 3: Driver has just done his/her 10 year re-test and has taken an advanced driving course offered free by the police (sponsored by petroleum companies/National Lottery/Insurance companies), kid has just done his green cross code (over the internet/taught by parents/community policeman).
Result: Your son or daughter crosses the road safely, saving the NHS/Insurance companies/police, millions.
Pick one,
Dave
I pick senairo 4, Driver obeys the 30mph speed limit and doesn't get zapped, carries on and doesn't hit the kid, then I would choose to carry on with senario 3. 30mph limits are a good thing! They are (Usually) in force around highly populated areas and IMO should be obeyed. The posted limits above 30 are IMO too low and I have no problem with breaking these. Just my opinion!
quote:Simon, are you saying that scenario 3 (ie. green cross code for the pedestrian and advanced training for the driver) is unnecessary so long as drivers stick to the 30mph limit? You are joking, aren't you?
I pick senairo 4, Driver obeys the 30mph speed limit and doesn't get zapped, carries on and doesn't hit the kid, then I would choose to carry on with senario 3.
Self-satisfied drivers who think they are safe just because they stick to the posted speed limit are deluding themselves and have fallen for the brain-dead and fallacious "speed kills" argument.
The driver sticking unquestioningly to the 30mph limit is going to find themselves in scenario 2, not 3 (or your 4).
However, if you ever happen to follow me past a school at going home time you'll recognise me as the TVR doing about 20mph or less with the queue of angry motorists behind. Many of these will be members of the "30mph is safe here because the nice sign says so" brigade and will not understand why I am doing *less* than the posted speed limit. After all (in their minds) if there was a danger that warranted doing 20mph then the speed limit would be 20mph. Dangerous thinking indeed, but oh-so-common unfortunately.
However at 11pm on a Sunday I might be doing (gasp) 35mph on the same stretch of road.
No you have miss understood what I was getting at, or maybe I didn't explain very well. I agree with you 100%. But I am sick and tiered of people whining on about speed cameras! Yes there are a pain in the arse, yes they are used to create revenue (Tax), but we all know that they exist, we all know what the speed limit is and a 30mph limit is usually posted where 30mph is more than you should be traveling at. I take your point about late at night, your quite right. maybe there is a way to have Speed cameras active at certain times, on a timer switch for instance. Cameras are part of motoring in this country, good or bad, if they save one life then it's all been worth it.
The BMJ editorial puts a little more flesh on the bones of this story. It hasd some revealing views on how to tackle road casualties, and in the editorial at least, speed is notable by it's absence:-
War on the roads
The public health community must intervene
The last thing the world needs is another war. Nevertheless, this week the BMJ exposes one morethe war on the world's roads. But to what extent can the global road trauma epidemic be likened to war?
War is often waged by the powerful on the weak. In this case, the interests of pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users are pitted against the powers that stand to profit from increasing global motorisation. And there are many millions of casualties. Every day about 3000 people die and 30 000 people are seriously injured on the world's roads. In this issue Nantulya and Reich point out that over 85% of the deaths and 90% of disability adjusted life years lost from road traffic injuries are in low and middle income countries, with pedestrians, cyclists, and bus passengers bearing most of the burden. Most of the victims will never own a car, and many are children. Even in the high income countries, poor children are at greatest risk. The existence of a steep social class gradient in mortality in child pedestrians is well documented, but the evidence about socioeconomic gradients in morbidity due to injury has been conflicting. This week Hippisley-Cox and colleagues report a study of over 56 000 admissions of injured children to hospitals in Trent that provides clear evidence of a social class gradient in morbidity from injury, and which is steepest for injuries in pedestrians. Nevertheless, the prevention of traffic crashes is low on the list of public health priorities both in the United Kingdom and internationally, with record low levels of funding in research and development.
->As in other wars, propaganda is an important weapon.<-!!!
It is not in the interests of those who sell road transport to allow the private trouble of road death and injury to become a public issue. The idea that governments and the motor manufacturing industry have a major responsibility is not for public consumption. It is much more acceptable that the victims are held responsible. In this issue, Roger Browning, a trustee of the victims' charity RoadPeace, writes about the loss of his daughter in a road crash and his frustration at the absence of an appropriate response from the relevant authorities, including the medical profession. According to Marcel Haegi, the president of the European Federation of Road Traffic Victims, the failure of governments to properly enforce road safety laws, and to investigate road deaths as they would other situations involving the taking of life, is commonplace.
The current preoccupation with educational programmes for pedestrians and road safety awareness campaigns might be another example of road safety propaganda. For example, writing on injuries in child pedestrians in low income countries, the Global Road Safety Partnership (led by the World Bank) argues that one reason why these accidents happen is that children do not have the necessary knowledge and skills that allow them to deal with the hostile traffic environment. On the basis of their systematic review of controlled trials of pedestrian education programmes, however, Duperrex and colleagues point out that there is no evidence that education programmes for pedestrians reduce the risk of motor vehicle collisions involving child pedestrians, and no trials have been conducted in low and middle income countries. But research in biomechanics has shown that changes in the design of vehicles could greatly reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian injuries. Indeed, if vehicles complied with the recommendations of the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC), the estimated reductions in deaths among pedestrians could exceed 20%. The motor manufacturing industry vigorously opposes the introduction of this committee's recommendations for safety tests to benefit pedestrians. Trucks and buses hit a large number of pedestrians and bicyclists around the world, and it is possible to make the fronts of these vehicles safer.
At present this issue is not on the agenda of any manufacturer or official safety agency.
How can we end the war on the roads? Contributors in this theme issue offer a range of strategies. Firstly, health practitioners must join forces with victims' organisations to build broad based coalitions advocating improved prevention and better care for road victims. In particular, Coates and Davies highlight the need for more research and better training of doctors in prehospital trauma care. Secondly, we must counter propaganda by insisting on research based countermeasures, including those specifically tailored to local traffic conditions in low and middle income countries. O'Neill and Mohan call for national or regional road safety agencies staffed with trained professionals.
By 2020 road traffic crashes will have moved from ninth to third place in the world ranking of the burden of disease and will be second place in developing countries. Connor and colleagues in New Zealand show that sleepiness among drivers may account for nearly a fifth of road traffic crashes.13 Similarly, if the international public health community continues to sleep through the global road trauma pandemic it will be accountable for many millions of avoidable deaths and injuries.
Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology and public health.
Don't forget, this is a medical journal, and is credited with no political bias. For my sins, I read it every week, and it is as neutral as possible, on contentious issues, but has a humanitarian slant that is actually quite a pleasure to read. It has no axe to grind, so reports fairly, and uses reseacrch to back up conclusions. Go to :- http://bmj.com/content/vol324/issue7346/twib.shtml
By far the most interesting staistic is the one saying that airbags only reduce deaths by 8%. So why are they so popular, and seen as the greatest safety issue since the world began? Probably because it is a bloody sight cheaper to stick airbags in cars, than it is to re-tool Ford, BMW, Renault, etc., to produce cars with deformable front ends, soft bumpers etc. etc. HMG swallows all the car industry propoganda, and spews it out at the appropriate time to win votes. That is the modus operandi of government.
>> Edited by nubbin on Sunday 12th May 20:28
War on the roads
The public health community must intervene
The last thing the world needs is another war. Nevertheless, this week the BMJ exposes one morethe war on the world's roads. But to what extent can the global road trauma epidemic be likened to war?
War is often waged by the powerful on the weak. In this case, the interests of pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users are pitted against the powers that stand to profit from increasing global motorisation. And there are many millions of casualties. Every day about 3000 people die and 30 000 people are seriously injured on the world's roads. In this issue Nantulya and Reich point out that over 85% of the deaths and 90% of disability adjusted life years lost from road traffic injuries are in low and middle income countries, with pedestrians, cyclists, and bus passengers bearing most of the burden. Most of the victims will never own a car, and many are children. Even in the high income countries, poor children are at greatest risk. The existence of a steep social class gradient in mortality in child pedestrians is well documented, but the evidence about socioeconomic gradients in morbidity due to injury has been conflicting. This week Hippisley-Cox and colleagues report a study of over 56 000 admissions of injured children to hospitals in Trent that provides clear evidence of a social class gradient in morbidity from injury, and which is steepest for injuries in pedestrians. Nevertheless, the prevention of traffic crashes is low on the list of public health priorities both in the United Kingdom and internationally, with record low levels of funding in research and development.
->As in other wars, propaganda is an important weapon.<-!!!
It is not in the interests of those who sell road transport to allow the private trouble of road death and injury to become a public issue. The idea that governments and the motor manufacturing industry have a major responsibility is not for public consumption. It is much more acceptable that the victims are held responsible. In this issue, Roger Browning, a trustee of the victims' charity RoadPeace, writes about the loss of his daughter in a road crash and his frustration at the absence of an appropriate response from the relevant authorities, including the medical profession. According to Marcel Haegi, the president of the European Federation of Road Traffic Victims, the failure of governments to properly enforce road safety laws, and to investigate road deaths as they would other situations involving the taking of life, is commonplace.
The current preoccupation with educational programmes for pedestrians and road safety awareness campaigns might be another example of road safety propaganda. For example, writing on injuries in child pedestrians in low income countries, the Global Road Safety Partnership (led by the World Bank) argues that one reason why these accidents happen is that children do not have the necessary knowledge and skills that allow them to deal with the hostile traffic environment. On the basis of their systematic review of controlled trials of pedestrian education programmes, however, Duperrex and colleagues point out that there is no evidence that education programmes for pedestrians reduce the risk of motor vehicle collisions involving child pedestrians, and no trials have been conducted in low and middle income countries. But research in biomechanics has shown that changes in the design of vehicles could greatly reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian injuries. Indeed, if vehicles complied with the recommendations of the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC), the estimated reductions in deaths among pedestrians could exceed 20%. The motor manufacturing industry vigorously opposes the introduction of this committee's recommendations for safety tests to benefit pedestrians. Trucks and buses hit a large number of pedestrians and bicyclists around the world, and it is possible to make the fronts of these vehicles safer.
At present this issue is not on the agenda of any manufacturer or official safety agency.
How can we end the war on the roads? Contributors in this theme issue offer a range of strategies. Firstly, health practitioners must join forces with victims' organisations to build broad based coalitions advocating improved prevention and better care for road victims. In particular, Coates and Davies highlight the need for more research and better training of doctors in prehospital trauma care. Secondly, we must counter propaganda by insisting on research based countermeasures, including those specifically tailored to local traffic conditions in low and middle income countries. O'Neill and Mohan call for national or regional road safety agencies staffed with trained professionals.
By 2020 road traffic crashes will have moved from ninth to third place in the world ranking of the burden of disease and will be second place in developing countries. Connor and colleagues in New Zealand show that sleepiness among drivers may account for nearly a fifth of road traffic crashes.13 Similarly, if the international public health community continues to sleep through the global road trauma pandemic it will be accountable for many millions of avoidable deaths and injuries.
Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology and public health.
Don't forget, this is a medical journal, and is credited with no political bias. For my sins, I read it every week, and it is as neutral as possible, on contentious issues, but has a humanitarian slant that is actually quite a pleasure to read. It has no axe to grind, so reports fairly, and uses reseacrch to back up conclusions. Go to :- http://bmj.com/content/vol324/issue7346/twib.shtml
By far the most interesting staistic is the one saying that airbags only reduce deaths by 8%. So why are they so popular, and seen as the greatest safety issue since the world began? Probably because it is a bloody sight cheaper to stick airbags in cars, than it is to re-tool Ford, BMW, Renault, etc., to produce cars with deformable front ends, soft bumpers etc. etc. HMG swallows all the car industry propoganda, and spews it out at the appropriate time to win votes. That is the modus operandi of government.
>> Edited by nubbin on Sunday 12th May 20:28
quote:
I pick senairo 4, Driver obeys the 30mph speed limit and doesn't get zapped, carries on and doesn't hit the kid, then I would choose to carry on with senario 3. 30mph limits are a good thing! They are (Usually) in force around highly populated areas and IMO should be obeyed. The posted limits above 30 are IMO too low and I have no problem with breaking these. Just my opinion!
If the driver is doing 30 and the kid runs out from behind a parked car, he still gets hit, camera or no. If the driver is doing 30 and takes his eyes off the road, the kid gets hit, camera or no. Safety cameras, revenue cameras, call them what you will, they will have no marked effect on road casualties, except when they are used at junctions (traffic lights etc....) They are NOT the answer. Education, Education, Education as our Tone would say. Roads are dangerous, cars are heavy and hurt if they hit you - stay the F
k away from them. Solid objects and squishy bags of water (thats us BTW) don't mix very well. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff