'Hypocrisy' of speeding middle-class motorists

[HeadingNorth]

You used the typical anti-motorist/Brake method of always managing to lump paedophiles and motorists in the same catagory...

 

 

He didn't lump either group into any category.

[jeppers]

And welcome to the forum too!

 

My, aren't we all a friendly bunch! Thanks again for the welcome!

 

I think we're not too far off the same page perplexed. I completely agree with you, that when you bring all those elements into play, and if drivers slowed down, then accidents and injuries would be less severe.

 

But what about educating the kids not to run out in the road after a football? What about testing OAP's before they hit the age of 80 to make sure they are fit to be on the roads in the first place? I had an elderly chap driving towards me as I was leaving a dual carriageway - he was looking for a place to turn round at the time!

 

I kinda feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, as I'm not advocating speeding and driving around inconsiderately at all. I'm asking for a holistic view that will improve road safety for everyone. This thread started off with a police chief bleating on about how stopping funding for fixed camera's is going to bring Armageddon to UK roads, and it's all middle-class people moaning about it. Stopping funding for speed camera's won't bring the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse to Eccy Road, and it isn't just middle-class motorists that are the problem.

[jeppers]

And now to light the blue touchpaper once again....

 

Yes, we can. That is exactly what Sweden are doing. Whilst recognising zero road deaths is unachievable, they have produced fantastic results:

http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/safety_health/road_safety/road_safety_vision_zero.html

 

No, they aren't, we can't, and no country can. You even state it yourself. They acknowledge themselves that zero fatalities would be unrealistic, just as I said.

 

I do however applaud them in their quest to reduce it by 80-90%, and wish them every success. I will bet you a pound to a penny though, that they will not just rely on 1 big stick to make it happen, and will have a sensible and proper strategy that includes education to all road users (including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists), speed detection and policing, traffic calming, highway re-engineering, etc. All of the elements that have been mentioned before.

 

Can you name a road where nobody would hear you speeding, nobody would see you speeding, nobody is walkiing, cycling or driving, trying to cross the road, walking on the pavement or trying to get to sleep in a house within earshot of you speeding?

 

Thought not.

 

I think you're missing my point. It doesn't matter if I can name a road or not, the principle I am making still stands. If all of those conditions were met, and a motorist exceeded the posted speed limit for that stretch of highway, they would be breaking the law - yes? Where would the victim be? There wouldn't be one, and so it would quite rightly be a victimless crime. That is the perception of a lot of motorists here in the UK, albeit on normal roads without the criteria above.

 

You claimed the UK has the safest roads in Europe.

 

No, I didn't claim any such thing. I said the UK had some of the safest roads in the world, a statement backed up by multiple sources including the UK's Department for Transport.

 

You are wrong, and claiming children to be a "subset" is pretty distasteful, I would suggest that the number of children killed or seriously injured on our roads (Fifteen. Every day) is a national disgrace.

 

Sorry if you were offended by my post, but I still stand by it. Whichever way you look at it, KSI statistics for children, however appalling they are are a subset of the statistics for KSI in the UK. As I've just said, and they are not my statistics, according to a number of sources the UK is rated as having some of the safest roads in the world.

 

If there is a subset that exhibits a trend that is against the rest of the data, it would point to there being a big issue with that particular group. If someone wants to change that trend, then they should look to address that particular group with whatever tools are at their disposal, including measures such as education and awareness campaigns directly targeted at that particular group. We had it when I was growing up. The Green Cross Code man, cycling proficiency and parents and schools that constantly told children not to play in the road, look before crossing etc etc. I haven't seen an advert on the television recently that is aimed at educating children about road sense, because they are all aimed at drivers slowing down.

 

It is ten times more dangerous to cycle in the Uk than Denmark.

 

According to Helsinki Planning Department, cyclists are 2.5x more likely to get injured when cycling in a roadside cycle path than when cycling in the traffic flow. Go figure that! (see http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html and the Risks of Cycling piece at the bottom)

 

These are all statistics that on their own tell a story that, at best, can be manipulated in anyway you want. Just like speeding statistics. It is only when used with other data points does the whole picture become relevant, the right analysis conducted and the right outcomes generated.

 

You're in denial jeppers, there is no room for complacency on the carnage wrought on our roads and the injuries and deaths inflicted on the most vulnerable among us.

 

I'm not in denial spindrift, all I'm asking for is a sensible, inclusive approach to traffic management and road user safety for me and everyone else. A 'one size fits all' approach does not work, and can be evidenced in the slow down in safety figures, which in my mind suggests something needs to be done.

 

Speaking of carnage, in the UK, RoSPA state that every year 4,000 people die in accidents in the home, and 2.7m seek treatment at hospital. That's more than 7,000 people per day! Gently put the hammer down Spinny

[jeppers]

Sorry, my match is still alight....

 

Being anti-speeding is not anti-motorist.

 

Nobody compared motorists to paedophiles, I mentioned the way the newspapers cover stories.

 

Technically, you referenced speeding drivers as 'Speedophiles' which is such a close sounding word, that the inference is that a motorist who speeds is comparable to someone who molests children.

 

This, in my opinion, is quite a detestable thing to insinuate, and bang out of order.

[garrence]

A mixed picture, therefore. If you'd like a link to the full stats rather than an out-of-date part-year Grauniad version of it, please ask.

 

Sadly, spindrift likes to use half truths and dodgy statistics in support of his viewpoint, and simply ignores anything that does not support it.

 

So he can post a claim "Cyclist KSI rates up 19%"

 

while not telling you:

• it refers to just 3 months over a year ago.
  
• the source says "skewed by a series of factors over such a small period, and is also slightly meaningless when taken without the context"
  
• figures for any quarter vary wildly
  
• if you want to pick out any single figure to mislead, you could equally well say "cycling deaths down 30%!" (2007 to 2009).
  

 

So, regrettably, I'm unable to pay much credence to his posts because I know that he wants to convince me of a point by any means possible, regardless of accuracy, truth, moderation or common sense.

 

I see he spends all day, every day posting about this topic - a case of quantity over quality perhaps - so presumably is on a personal crusade. If there weren't so many posts accusing people of "lies" and throwing insults, plus selectively snipped postings of bits that agree with him, he would do a lot better.

[spindrift]

Helsinki isn't in Denmark, and I know cycle lanes are more dangerous than the road, that's why i cycle in the road. What that's got to do with my point is beyond me. Cycling Proficiency still exists, it's called Bikeability now.

 

I've seen adverts targetting children, the last one was the one about the dangers of crossing the road whilst texting. This idea that all resources are devoted to addressing speeding and nothing else is a myth, like your other bogus claims.

 

Why are you fixated on blaming the children for their own deaths and injuries? There is no evidence that poor behaviour by vulnerable road users is the cause of their own death in an RTA, in most cyclist/vehicle collisions the driver is to blame:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

 

 

The Swedes are not using one tactic in their tremendous campaign, as you know, having read the link, but lower speeds are a crucial part of the endeavour because lower speeds save lives.

 

 

You seem fixated on blaming the children, would it not be better to prevent the accident in the first place rather than argue about blame afterwards?

 

You're twisting the research to blame the victim.

 

Since your hypothetical road doesn't exist, which is why you are unable to name it, let's stick to the real world rather than fantasy deserted roads nobody but the speeding driver uses.

 

Worlwide research shows that reducing speeds saves lives, you seem desperate to include any and every measure that doesn't impede upon a driver's right to break the speed limit.

 

Why?

 

Why not just leave the house earlier?

 

Road accidents are the single biggest cause of accidental death among 5–14 year olds in this country, I don't think we have a record we can be proud of at all. The roads are for everyone, children should be allowed to cross the road without being mown down by a speeding driver. 95% off accidents have driver error as a factor, according to ROSPA:

 

http://www.rospawmg.org.uk/faq5.html

 

Higher speeds mean the driver has less time to react, and the impact and consequent injuries suffered are much more severe.

 

There are two strands emerging from your argument jeppers- first your desire to blame the victim and second your truly bizarre comment that speed limits are arbitrary. They are NOT arbitrary, they are mandatory - or are you saying that motorists should be free to pick and choose which laws they obey according to personal opinion?

 

The roads are public spaces and publically owned and subject to the law and, as I said earlier in this thread, the state has every right to enforce that law and drivers have no right to break it.

[spindrift]

Sorry, my match is still alight....

 

 

 

Technically, you referenced speeding drivers as 'Speedophiles' which is such a close sounding word, that the inference is that a motorist who speeds is comparable to someone who molests children.

 

This, in my opinion, is quite a detestable thing to insinuate, and bang out of order.

 

 

Statistically, a speedophile is by a large degree more likely to kill a child than a paedophile.

 

Naturally you resent this, because you defend speedophiles and try to blame children for their own deaths.

[spindrift]

Sadly, spindrift likes to use half truths and dodgy statistics in support of his viewpoint, and simply ignores anything that does not support it.

 

So he can post a claim "Cyclist KSI rates up 19%"

 

while not telling you:

• it refers to just 3 months over a year ago.
  
• the source says "skewed by a series of factors over such a small period, and is also slightly meaningless when taken without the context"
  
• figures for any quarter vary wildly
  
• if you want to pick out any single figure to mislead, you could equally well say "cycling deaths down 30%!" (2007 to 2009).
  

 

So, regrettably, I'm unable to pay much credence to his posts because I know that he wants to convince me of a point by any means possible, regardless of accuracy, truth, moderation or common sense.

 

I see he spends all day, every day posting about this topic - a case of quantity over quality perhaps - so presumably is on a personal crusade. If there weren't so many posts accusing people of "lies" and throwing insults, plus selectively snipped postings of bits that agree with him, he would do a lot better.

 

 

 

If the increase in cycle injuries was due to increasing numbers of cyclists or cyclist miles then there should still be roughly similar increases across both the injured and killed categories.

 

19% versus 7% is surely a statistically significant difference indicating that somehow regardless of whether cyclists counts or distances went up cycling did get disproportionally more lethal in 2009.

[willman]

An irrelevant question. A fairer comparison would be with people who are committing illegal acts and argue that nobody should be allowed to check up on them.

 

So far, I've seen precisely zero cases on this thread.

 

But that isn't the way the debates gone -we're debating road safety issues. With people who are potentially unsafe on the road.

 

 

Plus those of us who admit to speeding.

[garrence]

19% versus 7% is surely a statistically significant difference indicating that somehow regardless of whether cyclists counts or distances went up cycling did get disproportionally more lethal in 2009.

 

3 months in 2009.

 

You've done your trick again of ignoring the substance of a post and replying to a small part of it in a quick-fire round of replies.

 

The substance of my post was noting your willingness to misuse statistics by quoting one that agrees with you while ignoring the caveats and figures that don't.

 

Anyway - calm down for a moment and skip the hysteria and dodgy stats for one reply and perhaps answer the underlying question in my last post:

 

You've made thousands of posts on this one subject, have a huge array of (one-sided) stats and quotes, plus up-to-the-minute news about little scraps between provocative Kiwis and angry van men. Why? What happened to make you want to spend all day every day (it seems, looking at your post history) ranting at people about this one topic? Lost a loved one?