Thought you bad people might like to see this.....
Discussion
It was in my local rag. I so want to reply but am not nearly eloquent enough and would probably end up raging about Micra drivers 
. Have a read and let me know what you think. I could always take the best bits of each and form a letter that way!
This chap doesn't live far from my 'Pie on the Beach' location (see events thread) and now the thought of several TVR's, Porsches, Ultima's (Paul?) blatting by his house leaving trails of rubber seems even more fun!
PS Sorry it's long - but I thought it only fair to give it word-for-word coverage.
Speed kills - and we should take action now.
I read Ray Huges' good letter on page 11 of the May Hayling Islander with more than a passing interest.
Sadly I do not think that local action will ever solve the problem in the long term.
Over 20 years, I kept records of the mayhem on our roads along with Ministers' promses to do better.
During those 20 years, we killed 70,000 people in road accidents and seriously injured some ¾ of a million. Many of them were children.
The figures for last year were 3, 409 killed, 38,200 seriuosly injured, and 233,000 with recorded personal injuries. So no improvement.
Pause for a moment to consider the impact on emergency departments of our hospitals, with their pathetic rows of patients waiting on their trolleys.
Speed is a killer and research has shown that a reduction of only 2 miles per hour in average speeds would save more than 200 lives each year, and some 3,500 serious injuries.
Casualties multiply in urban areas like Hayling Island and I know of nowhere else where the law and the provisions of the Highway Code are treated with such routine comtempt and near total disregard as on our lovely island.
Action is required on a national scale for there to be any sustained improvement.
So what needs to be done? I list three priorities:
Firstly the absurd condition inposed by the Home Office under the hypothecation scheme, that cameras must be visible at all times, has to go. The best way to control speeding, and I follow Anthony Fincham in The Times and others, is to "deploy the cameras so that a motorist never knows when he is being watched".
Secondly, and with limited police resources available, the penalties for breaking the speed limits have to be draconian to be effective and to the point where a speeder will say "My God, I'm not going to have that happen to me. Serial offenders should have their vehicles confiscated.
Finally, it should be a legal requirement for drivers to sign every five years that they have read and understood the Highwaycode.
Vice Admiral Dick Wildish, Seafront, Hayling Island.
. Have a read and let me know what you think. I could always take the best bits of each and form a letter that way! This chap doesn't live far from my 'Pie on the Beach' location (see events thread) and now the thought of several TVR's, Porsches, Ultima's (Paul?) blatting by his house leaving trails of rubber seems even more fun!
PS Sorry it's long - but I thought it only fair to give it word-for-word coverage.
Speed kills - and we should take action now.
I read Ray Huges' good letter on page 11 of the May Hayling Islander with more than a passing interest.
Sadly I do not think that local action will ever solve the problem in the long term.
Over 20 years, I kept records of the mayhem on our roads along with Ministers' promses to do better.
During those 20 years, we killed 70,000 people in road accidents and seriously injured some ¾ of a million. Many of them were children.
The figures for last year were 3, 409 killed, 38,200 seriuosly injured, and 233,000 with recorded personal injuries. So no improvement.
Pause for a moment to consider the impact on emergency departments of our hospitals, with their pathetic rows of patients waiting on their trolleys.
Speed is a killer and research has shown that a reduction of only 2 miles per hour in average speeds would save more than 200 lives each year, and some 3,500 serious injuries.
Casualties multiply in urban areas like Hayling Island and I know of nowhere else where the law and the provisions of the Highway Code are treated with such routine comtempt and near total disregard as on our lovely island.
Action is required on a national scale for there to be any sustained improvement.
So what needs to be done? I list three priorities:
Firstly the absurd condition inposed by the Home Office under the hypothecation scheme, that cameras must be visible at all times, has to go. The best way to control speeding, and I follow Anthony Fincham in The Times and others, is to "deploy the cameras so that a motorist never knows when he is being watched".
Secondly, and with limited police resources available, the penalties for breaking the speed limits have to be draconian to be effective and to the point where a speeder will say "My God, I'm not going to have that happen to me. Serial offenders should have their vehicles confiscated.
Finally, it should be a legal requirement for drivers to sign every five years that they have read and understood the Highwaycode.
Vice Admiral Dick Wildish, Seafront, Hayling Island.
quote:
Over 20 years, I kept records of the mayhem on our roads along with Ministers' promses to do better.
During those 20 years, we killed 70,000 people in road accidentsThe figures for last year were 3, 409 killed, So no improvement.
Pause for a moment to consider ...
... the figures. Last years figures for fatalities contribute to just under 5% of the total, or an 'average' years worth if taken over the 20 years he quotes.
Now, given the huge rise in traffic volume over the last 20 years I'd say this points to a continuing improvement in real terms (lovely politicians phrase that, but I'm damned if I know what it means
). Anyhow, for my money more trips with the same number of fatalities gives a lower percentage each year and thus an improvement. Mind you, I could be completely wrong. 
Dan
Unfortunately there is no point talking to someone like that - he is the typical blinkered little Englander who obeys rules because they are there, without considering the consequences or otherwise of the applicability or necessity for them.
The safest solution (and the most fun) would be to assmble outside his house and burn rubber (without breaking the speed limit of course..!)
His attitude is the reason we have such draconian laws, and you can bet your bottom dollar he's the sort of chap who would love to serve as a magistrate - "Hang em high Harry", no reprieve for anyone.
There is enuff evidence to show that visibility of cameras (and other forms of policing) is what reduces crime and improves poor driving standards, so his arguement about hiding them won't hold water. Covert surveillance of any sort just gets peoples backs up - smacks too much of "big Brother" and police states.
He has a typical "single issue" stance, in terms of collating data - has he not thought that more people have died due to accidents in the home than on the roads?
Speed kills - just not true as a statement It is the act of dissipating excessive kinetic energy created when two bodies with different speeds collide the kills. He has clearly not doen sufficient research to understand that it is inappropriate speed that kills. No-one would argue about sensibly low limits within urban areas (where the majoirty of accidents occur), but once clear of them, lets apply common sense and allow for sensible limits.. I was thinking about this the other day as I drove home from work - it was a single carriageway A road, with some good straights, some nice sweeping bends and some tight corners, all clearly marked in advance. It was perfectly safe to vary my speed from 40-50 through some of the slower bends to (well, you guess) along the straighter sections, but it did require that I paid attention to the road conditions, oncoming traffic, mud on the road, low sun etc etc. But perfectly safe nonetheless. In the (rare) occassions when I have been determined to stay below the limit, my mind wanders, attention wavers and the drive is done in a daze, with a huge potential for an accident. That is what happens when you have blind obedience to incorrectly set limits.
I would welcome the opportunity to experiment with variable limits in somewhere like his area - make it 20-30 around the towns, up it to 80 on the non-urban roads and de-restrict the M-ways. Slap all the tax cameras in the urban areas and see who gets nabbed. The accident rate would fall substantially IMHO.
But if he wants to blindly believe that "speed kills", then the logical conclusion to his arguement, and his desired outcome of zero road deaths, would be to stop all traffic completely - which is bizarre.
Not sure this is what you wnated, just got the urge to type something.!!
The safest solution (and the most fun) would be to assmble outside his house and burn rubber (without breaking the speed limit of course..!)
His attitude is the reason we have such draconian laws, and you can bet your bottom dollar he's the sort of chap who would love to serve as a magistrate - "Hang em high Harry", no reprieve for anyone.
There is enuff evidence to show that visibility of cameras (and other forms of policing) is what reduces crime and improves poor driving standards, so his arguement about hiding them won't hold water. Covert surveillance of any sort just gets peoples backs up - smacks too much of "big Brother" and police states.
He has a typical "single issue" stance, in terms of collating data - has he not thought that more people have died due to accidents in the home than on the roads?
Speed kills - just not true as a statement It is the act of dissipating excessive kinetic energy created when two bodies with different speeds collide the kills. He has clearly not doen sufficient research to understand that it is inappropriate speed that kills. No-one would argue about sensibly low limits within urban areas (where the majoirty of accidents occur), but once clear of them, lets apply common sense and allow for sensible limits.. I was thinking about this the other day as I drove home from work - it was a single carriageway A road, with some good straights, some nice sweeping bends and some tight corners, all clearly marked in advance. It was perfectly safe to vary my speed from 40-50 through some of the slower bends to (well, you guess) along the straighter sections, but it did require that I paid attention to the road conditions, oncoming traffic, mud on the road, low sun etc etc. But perfectly safe nonetheless. In the (rare) occassions when I have been determined to stay below the limit, my mind wanders, attention wavers and the drive is done in a daze, with a huge potential for an accident. That is what happens when you have blind obedience to incorrectly set limits.
I would welcome the opportunity to experiment with variable limits in somewhere like his area - make it 20-30 around the towns, up it to 80 on the non-urban roads and de-restrict the M-ways. Slap all the tax cameras in the urban areas and see who gets nabbed. The accident rate would fall substantially IMHO.
But if he wants to blindly believe that "speed kills", then the logical conclusion to his arguement, and his desired outcome of zero road deaths, would be to stop all traffic completely - which is bizarre.
Not sure this is what you wnated, just got the urge to type something.!!
70mph may well be a sensible limit for a dribbling old fart in his 80's, stinking of piss, weaving over lanes, who's blind beyond his bonnet, parping along in a rusty, ill maintained marina with drum brakes. However, it is a bloody joke for someone young, experienced, with decent reactions in a new abs laiden porsche (for example) to have to be treated with the same rules. I'm safer at 150 than some old numptie at 20.
Here's another thing (a major contributor to road accidents) - driving while tired..
Hate to admit this, but this happened to me the other night.. Had been seeing a bit of totty (as you do!) and drove home after around 1ish. I knew I was dog-tired, but deterimed to get home. I slept. I woke up, on the wrong side of the road, overtaking one car, with a car coming straight at me and plod one car in front. How I missed them all and got onto my side of the road again I just do not know - and I was only doing about 40!. And how plod didn't see all this is also beyond me. Scared the bejesus out of me. THAT would not have been stopped by any number of revenue cameras, nor would the "joy-rider" stuffing it into someone on a roundabout.
Get the priorities right - concentrate on the real reasons for accidents and watch the numbers fall. Except they wont - it would be my educated guess that we have reached the limit for reduction, (law of diminsihing returns) and it is not economically feasible (or politically acceptable) to do the things that would need to be done to acheive any more worhtwhiole reductions. The number of cars on the roads and the miles/accident woud preclude this. That is a better figure to monitor, rather than bald numbers - accidents per passenger mile.
Hate to admit this, but this happened to me the other night.. Had been seeing a bit of totty (as you do!) and drove home after around 1ish. I knew I was dog-tired, but deterimed to get home. I slept. I woke up, on the wrong side of the road, overtaking one car, with a car coming straight at me and plod one car in front. How I missed them all and got onto my side of the road again I just do not know - and I was only doing about 40!. And how plod didn't see all this is also beyond me. Scared the bejesus out of me. THAT would not have been stopped by any number of revenue cameras, nor would the "joy-rider" stuffing it into someone on a roundabout.
Get the priorities right - concentrate on the real reasons for accidents and watch the numbers fall. Except they wont - it would be my educated guess that we have reached the limit for reduction, (law of diminsihing returns) and it is not economically feasible (or politically acceptable) to do the things that would need to be done to acheive any more worhtwhiole reductions. The number of cars on the roads and the miles/accident woud preclude this. That is a better figure to monitor, rather than bald numbers - accidents per passenger mile.
quote:
Bloody hell, you nutter. You should wind your windows down if your that tired. The noise and cold will wake you up a treat.
Already done that - and I'd stopped for a 5 min snooze and I'd had a smoke and the stereo was on loud. Just too ferkin tired to drive and too dumb to stop.
Right - I've had a smoke & I've got a cup of tea...
have some of this Vice Admiral Dick Suck
Mark - emial this to them - I doubt they care what basingstoke man thinks, so no point in me contacting the paper direct:
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 3rd July 12:31
have some of this Vice Admiral Dick Suck
Mark - emial this to them - I doubt they care what basingstoke man thinks, so no point in me contacting the paper direct:
quote:
It is not a little depressing to read the bilious outburst from Vice Admiral Dick Wildish recently.
I'm not about to cite statistics to counter his argument, since anyone with a rudimentary understanding knows that statistics can be distorted to prove or disprove whatever takes ones fancy.
What I will say is that his reaction to the perceived problem of speeding motorists is not only predictable, but ill-thought out and dangerous on many levels.
First of all, there is the "Speed Kills" mantra. The school of thought which apparently tells us that as long as we're under the speed limit, everything is fine and we are not causing a danger to ourselves or others. Blind adherance will see us through. This belief is entirely likely to precipitate a much less vigilant approach to driving than is required. Most accidents occur at or below the speed limit in force at the location in question, so how does the Vice Admiral reconcile this assertion with his ideas?
The key here is "Appropriate speed for the circumstances". Where there is fog, rain and other adverse conditions, it is often sensible to drive significantly below the speed limit, particularly on motorways and county roads. Yet I frequently see people (even some with 'Speed Kills' bumper stickers) tanking along at 70MPH with negligable visibility. On the other hand, when conditions are clear, dry and quiet, the speed limit in force on motorways is most often farcical. Driving in accordancwe with the prevailing conditions is the skill which motorists need to acquire, not blind adherance to regulation, which seems to encourage people to disengage their powers of thought and anticipation.
Regarding Hypothecation, it matters not whether cameras are painted grey, green or sky blue & pink. The scheme represents a dangerous precident by which the enforcement of the law is motivated by fiscal ends, thereby undermining all that a fair and just society should stand for. I'm sure the Vice Admiral would be proud to say that the British Justice system is amongst the best in the world, and yet he advocates driving it forward by turning it into a money-making scheme.
Time after time, roads with perfectly benign accident records have their speed limits lowered and hidden cameras erected. Such tactics are clearly motivated by the capacity to swell the coffers of the exchequer and the police force. Driver do spot hidden cameras late and they do impulsively jump on the brakes irrespective of whether they're actually over the limit or not. This causes accidents. If drivers can see a camera early, tey have plenty of time to check their speed and are alerted that they are approaching an accident blackspot in time to deal with the situation smoothly and without incident.
Moving on, why on earth sign a piece of paper promising that you've read the highway code? What would this achieve and what gives rise to the impression that reading the highway code in isolation would make any difference at all to how drivers behave on the road?
The real key is to actually re-assess drivers on a regular basis and to provide access to advanced training which would serve to raise individual awareness of potential dangers on the road. My experience of driving has taught me that the more aware you are of the potential dangers around you, the more careful and prepared you are - hence significantly less likely to have an accident, whether adhering to ancient and arbitrary speed limits or not. I think it's fair to say that the number of drivers who proceed on a daily basis with their heads in the clouds represent a much greater danger than the large proportion of the driving population who occasionally break speed limits.
Is the end game to see everyone who breaks the speed limit disqualified from driving? Perhaps the Vice Admiral could stop to think what impact this would have on our economy where, in a country with a wholly inadequate public transport infrastructure, many of us rely on our cars to reach our places of employment.
Finally, after a number of years of increasing deployment of speed cameras, can the Vice Admiral tell me why there has been no log term reduction in road deaths whatsoever?
Best regards
yada yada yada
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 3rd July 12:31
Only problem is it's a bit long (added some stuff - read it again post-edit) & they'll chop it down to look like an incoherent rant - still, it won't have my name on it and if it brings on an anyeurism (sp?) in Vice Admiral Dick Head then my work here is done
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 3rd July 12:33
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 3rd July 12:33
quote:
Only problem is it's a bit long (added some stuff - read it again post-edit) & they'll chop it down to look like an incoherent rant - still, it won't have my name on it and if it brings on an anyeurism (sp?) in Vice Admiral Dick Head then my work here is done
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 3rd July 12:33
So we can paraphrase it then..... down to
Vice Admiral Dick Head - get your head out of your a
e Works for me!
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff