Arsonists set fire to a safety camera in Telford today after dousing it in fuel.
A tyre was placed on top of the camera in Dawley Road, Arleston, shortly after 4am and a blanket draped over the top. The arsonists then poured a full can of petrol over the top and set it on fire. Sub-officer Alan Wilson, of Wellington fire station, described it as a “deliberate attack”.
He said: “They have put a tyre on the top, draped it in a blanket and then set it on fire.
“Fortunately for us, and for those who pay for them, it went upwards and didn’t damage the speed camera.
“We think it is still working.”
Sub-officer Wilson said firefighters were pretty certain petrol had been used to start the fire after a petrol can was found at the scene.
Denise Wakefield, Telford police spokeswoman, said: “Police officers went out to the scene shortly after 4am today when it was set on fire.
“We would appeal for anyone with information in relation to the incident to come forward.”
Anyone with information about the arson attack is asked to call Telford police on 08457 444888.
The safety camera was installed on the road in 2005 following the death of five-year-old Benjamin O’Shea.
Benjamin died the year before after being hit by a car as he crossed the road with his mother.
The West Mercia Camera Safety Partnership announced two cameras would be installed on Dawley Road following his inquest.
Arsonists have attacked cameras in the area before.In 2005 the camera in Station Road, Ketley was left blackened by flames after being vandalised in an apparent arson attack and also daubed with red paint.
Arsonists set light to the speed trap in Bennetts Bank, Wellington – Shropshire’s first permanent camera – during the same month.
It was also targeted by a disgruntled motorist who sliced it in half with an industrial circular saw after it first went live.
By Crime Correspondent Kirsty Smallman
138 Comments
Admittedly we don’t know the motive for this attack, but why do people get so worked up about speed cameras? The solution is DON’T SPEED. Quite simple really. It’s a bit like complaining that putting vinegar in your eyes stings … answer: don’t do it.
Report abuse
Stupid, Mindless behaviour - camera’s are there to force people to slow down for a reason.
In my views the laws are too lapse - anyone caught speeding would be banned from driving for 2 years and forced to take the driving test again. Far too many people think it is ok to speed in bult up area’s without thinking about the consequences of there actions.
Report abuse
I don’t understand the hatred for these. If you don’t speed you won’t have a problem.
Report abuse
Y Mab,
There is a very good reason for the government not banning everyone who has had three points on their licence, for speeding, for two years. That is because, I believe, one in four drivers in this country have had this happen to them and just think of the revenue they would lose if they took all those millions of drivers off the road for two years. Much better for them to keep putting cameras up and keep the money rolling in.
It’s just a shame they can’t target the other 95% of motorists that cause fatalities without “speeding”
Report abuse
Y Mab,
About 2 Million speed tickets are issued every year so in two years that’s four million tickets. If we were to take four million drivers off the road every two years I think that the government would be upset at the loss of revenue from those four million , don’t you?
It’s easier for them to keep putting up speed cameras and keep raking in the money and it’s a lot easier than trying to rectify the reasons for the 95% of accidents that aren’t the result of “speeding”
Report abuse
‘arsonists then poured a full can of petrol over the top and set it on fire. Sub-officer Alan Wilson, of Wellington fire station, described it as a “deliberate attack”.’
I think Sub-officer Wilson may have missed his vocation - he should have been a detective…
Report abuse
the chavs are alive and well in telford then. petrol comes down below the pound and it is a chavs charter
Report abuse
The Police should be looking at everyone who has been caught by this camera and who is up to their maximum points off their DL or close to it. This seems more than the opportunist, idiotic caper and more like someone with a lot to lose when their number comes up. Even the best laid plans of thieves, burglars and camera arsonists can go badly wrong if they don’t think things through properly but that would be crediting our Police with the ability to detect crimes wouldn’t it. What’s the betting this is forgotten about on the grounds that our Police are to busy.
Report abuse
A “deliberate attack”
No! Really! Are other arson attacks on the roadside terrorists accidental, then??!!!???
And just to pre-empt following comments, I predict the following:
“Don’t do the crime, if you can’t pay the fine”
“It’s simple, speed kills”
“If just one life is saved……”
“…..boy racers….”
“….selfish, speeding drivers….”
I will leave with a quote from Austin Williams (of the Transport Research Lab): “Show me a driver that has never exceeded a speed limit, and I’ll show you either a liar or a menace”
Report abuse
I’d rather have cameras than bumps, in the space of 2yrs i’ve had to replace 4 shocks costing more than 5 fixed penalty fines.
Report abuse
The faster you drive the more petrol you use.
obviousley people who drive to fast have an obsession about speed cameras.They must have loads of money for eratic driving and having petrol to commit arson.They are also lucky to have not had a child killed by a maniac driver.
Report abuse
A FULL CAN OF FUEL……
WHO CAN AFFORD THAT ….
Don’t worry about the cost to fix it they will make that in a min or so.
Report abuse
Brian, this is to say nothing about the economical *devastation* that would result from millions of commuters, taxi drivers, van and lorry drivers, bus drivers and others suddenly being unable to drive for two years. The economy would quite quickly grind to a halt as millions of people were unable to get to work, unable to work in their vocation at all, unable to buy cars or petrol, unable to buy car accessories or pay for car maintenance, etc, etc, etc…
Some short-sighted people simply don’t understand the way the world works at all.
Report abuse
brian, your missing the point the 4 million banned drivers would be spending money on public transport which would give a huge boost to our public transport infrstructure.
And in my view if someone is stupid enough to drive over the limit in a dangerous piece of equipment they are not inteligent enough to be allowed to be in control of a vehicle.
Report abuse
So the Government won’t ban speeding drivers because they’d rather have the fines revenue. So how about this radical idea : DON’T SPEED. Then they won’t get any revenue. People who speed must want to give the Government money. So drivers, it’s up to you. No speeding, no cash to the politicians.
Report abuse
Sub-officer Alan Wilson, of Wellington fire station, described it as a “deliberate attack”.
Well done Sherlock Holmes! (you know the phrase I REALLY want to use!)
Report abuse
If people used public transport, they wouldn’t be prosecuted for speeding in their cars! Alternatively, do what I do and travel on horseback.
Report abuse
That Alan Wilson is astute!
Wasted in the Police.
Report abuse
I have re-posted my comment from
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/10/11/hi-tech-cameras-bid-to-cut-speed/#comment-53851
as I think it is valid for this thread in relation to speed cameras and penalty points.
“I drove up to Derbyshire Saturday at 6:30, in the dark to beat the muppets on the road and I’m sure you understand what I am saying when I say I “enjoyed the freedom of the road” and was giving this tread some thought.
Just suppose I skidded off: 3pt for driving without due care, a rear brake light out-3pts and two tyres, a bit iffy,3pts x 2. Bingo 12 points!
No that wouldn’t relect my previous impecable driving record.
I think people should get a credit of one point a year, upto say a maximum of 10 years. So in this scenario it wold be 12 minus 10,i.e two points on my licence, but still the 4 x£60 fines. Now that would be justice.”
Report abuse
I can’t understand why people complain about being fined for something they have control over. What’s so hard to understand? No speeding = no fine. Clear enough?
Report abuse
Y Mab,
public transport doesn’t work in this country and it would no way make up for the economical losses of four million, heavily taxed drivers.
As for don’t speed and don’t give any money to the government. Why do you think that 80% of all roads are having their speed limits slashed? Just to enable normally safe drivers to become “criminals” by driving at a speed that has been safe for decades and now suddenly become “unsafe”. What makes a safe 60MPH road suddenly warrant a 40MPH limit or a good dual carriage way warrant a 50MPH limit, please answer that if you can?
Report abuse
Over 5000 people die each year from asbestos related deaths, far more than being killed on the roads but do we have fear campaigns saying “asbestos kills” to the extent of “speed kills” campaigns, I think not but “speed” is a money maker, asbestos isn’t.
Report abuse
I don’t believe that 95% of accidents aren’t down to speed, most accidents i know of are down to speed and i live on a road where there have been 6 deaths in the last 10 years and all down to people driving to fast. We have a crash here every few months and most are because the driver was going to fast and couldn’t take the bend in our village or couldn’t stop in time when the car in front was turning off the road. I would love a camera here.
Report abuse
I don’t know if you’ve used a train recently Y Mab, but the railway network can’t cope with the demand it has at the moment, let alone 4 million other people. To say nothing of the fact that a lot of people are well outside of the public transport network, along with the other economic factors mentioned.
Report abuse
Brian(2): Good point in #22. In fact more people are killed falling off ladders than by drink-drivers. Whilst every avoidable death is tragic do we see Government campaigns saying “Dont fall off a ladder this Christmas”?
Are safetey campaigners calling for ladder heights to be lowered? Do I need say more!
Report abuse
Brian, perhaps some roads are having their speed limits slashed because they were too high? And if you believe the new speed limits are too low (and maybe some are) and so decide to ignore them as a kind of protest, then you can’t complain if you are fined. Have people who object to new lower limits complained in other ways? And even if you think limits have been cut to generate cash (a bit conspiracy theorist?) the clever thing to do would be to not play into their hands and keep to the new lower limits. At the end of the day it is still up to you if you speed.
Report abuse
Jane,
There is “driving too fast for the road/conditions/driver and cars ability” and there’s “breaking the speed limit”
An experienced driver knows the difference between the two and it seems that most of the accidents that you describe fall into the first category. That is why drivers need regular assessment and better training after passing their initial test not just blanket speed limits.
Report abuse
If there are two million speeding motorists on the road a year (and that’s just the ones who are caught and ticketed, there must be millions more), then how come there aren’t more deaths than there are? It’s just under two thousand per annum I believe.
If speed kills to such an extent that we hear, we would all be extinct by now
Report abuse
Andrew said:
“That Alan Wilson is astute!
Wasted in the Police.”
…..that’s probably why he joined the fire service!!
Report abuse
Stephen, the roads I am talking about have been around at their old limits for decades and some since their building, so why slash speeds no? Reports have shown that these roads have LESS THAN HALF the national average accidents and Mean Speeds in excess of 50 MPH which means the MAJORITY of drivers feel that is a safe speed for them. Explain please?
Report abuse
Do you know what?? If the speed limit was 30mph on every road and everyone kept to that limit - there would still be accidents !! People would still drive too close, they would still drink whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, whilst tired etc etc .. speed is not the only factor affecting the level of accidents on our roads.
Don’t get me wrong I do not advocate speeding in any way but don’t think speed is the only danger on the roads…
Report abuse
Rob, Telford
Never read the story, just the comments!!
That’s why I’m a Lawyer!!
Too short for the Police!
Report abuse
At the end of the day whether or not speed causes the majority of accidents doesn’t matter. The fact is speed limits are law and you can’t pick and choose which laws you obey because you don’t agree with them. Otherwise what is to stop me from murdering someone and then claiming that I felt it was reasonable force?
Report abuse
Quite #31.
Drop the speed limit to 20 by all means. If one has a head on crash with another vehicle doing 20, impact speed will be 40. Personally, I’m not keen on that idea. This is notwithstanding the fact that exceeding a speed limit accounts for 2% of road deaths each year.
So. What I’ll do (and have been doing for the last 15-odd years at ca. 20,000 miles per year) is keep my vision whilst driving “lifted”, drive in a manner that allows me to stop in the distance I can see to be clear, anticipate the movements of other road users, drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions and car (which may be above the speed limit), and show courteousness and consideration for other road users.
Of the above, observation is key. It means I don’t get nipped by roadside terrorists.
You see, what really sticks in my throat is the fact that they are touted as being an asset to road safety, when - in fact - they are anything but an asset, and do not address the major causes of road deaths in this country. Moreover, I believe they are creating a type of driver that believes that as long as they are driving at or below the speed limit, they they are “safe” drivers.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I firmly believe that such drivers will take about as much pride in their driving as they do in their ironing skills.
i.e. Nothing.
Report abuse
As I have said on these columns many, many times, I have driven well over 800,000 miles, in the UK and abroad, in over 44 years of accident free motoring.
Now… in the light of this “extensive experience”….I think I can say therefore, without much chance of being challenged, that I have a great deal of experience of driving.
And
That experience includes driving in many different conditions, speeds, road types, and vehicles.
NOW - I can say this much….
Speed is entirely relative, and … a good driver, as any good book (and the police driver manuals) on advanced driving will tell you - that - the hallamrk of a good driver is to drive at a speed commensurate with the conditions prevailing at any time, be ALWAYS aware of the hazards ahead, and of course drive within the speed limit.
NOW … The problem we have here, as has been eloquently pointed out by spindrift et al, is that a “safe” speed may well not be equal to, or less than, a “posted speed limit”.
NOW - NO ONE is advocating breaking the law - LET’s make that QUITE CLEAR - Please !
BUT … where perfectly good roads have have had unrealistic lower speed limits applied, example: dual carriageways in telford limited to 40, 50 and 60 Mph where they were 70Mph before - then this starts to raise doubts about the “real” reason behind their implementation.
NOW - It is my belief that the motoring/transport fraternity is starting to realise this - and we may well be seeing:
1. A reducing respect for speed limits in general - as they are being percieved as unrealisitc by a significant proportion of drivers - and that particularly the impostion of cameras after these lower speed limits have been applied are there to raise funds - and not to promote safety. I genuinely believe that there is more than a grain of truth in that argument.
and …
2. The green shoots of retaliation taking place. - Which of course should be done by lobbying those responsible by forming pressure groups etc (I have advocated this on another thread discussing the proposed “averaging” speed cameras on the A442 /ep. - and not by setting fire to a camera !
But - In this case I’m afraid what we are seeing is a regrettable case of “more direct protest action” by attempted arson of the camera.
NOW - I think the answer to this is to remove unrelalistic speed limits from all major roads, and ensure that drivers are aware that they need to drive, as I said earlier at a “safe speed”, and conversely - apply equally realistic “low” speed limits where needed, that is within housing estates, by schools during school hours etc.
My bet is … Treat drivers fairly and responsibly - and we might find that this responsibilty will show itself as drivers being much mre prepared to honour lower speed limits WHERE they are neccessary.
How about that then?
Lets see shall we ?
Report abuse
I’ve gotta agree with Brian(2) on this one, the government isn’t making all these changes for safety reasons, it’s doing it to make money! I do not speed but I also don’t agree that because we have a few morons on the roads everyone else has to suffer through ridiculous speed limits, speed bumps and speed cameras almost everywhere we drive.
Report abuse
I believe the speed camera in question was placed there as a response to a tragic accident that did not involve speed.
Report abuse
We’ve all seen the results of dropping the speed limit on the Eastern Primary…higher casualties!
Need I say more!
Report abuse
I find it amusing to hear all the posters claiming speed camera’s are just there to raise money.
In that case would they all prefer the following option.
1) No fine if caught speeding
2) and in place of a fine a automatic 12 month driving ban
Report abuse
Andrew said:
“Never read the story, just the comments!!
That’s why I’m a Lawyer!!
Too short for the Police!”
…or too honest ;•)
Report abuse
some people have WAY too much time on their hands !
Report abuse
Are people saying that when the speed limit is lowered on a road they are unable to keep to the new limit, or that they don’t want to? If you really think it’s all about raising cash, then as I said before, be a bit clever and beat them by sticking to the new limit. Once again, no breaking the limit, no revenue. It’s still up to you, drivers.
Report abuse
1) Rob, an Honest Lawyer … or is that just relative to the police
(Sorry Andrew)
2) I knew when I first read this article that there would be a slew of posts by sanctimonious individuals along the lines of “if you don’t speed, you won’t get caught”. It’s an overly simplistic view. Personally, I’d prefer to see someone driving at 36 mph in a 30 zone who is concentrating on the pedestrians, vehicles and road conditions around them than someone using 90% of their attention to monitor their speedo and not spotting that child stepping off the curb.
3) According to government stats, speed does not kill. It’s poor driving that’s the problem. Speed however, can make things worse. A bend might be negotiable at 30 or 130 mph however, if the driver makes a mess of it, they’d be better doing 30 than 130 mph when they hit that tree.
4) Police are not against speeding per se. I’m not too proud to admit that I’ve been stopped by police riding my motorbike at 93 mph. I was given a stern talking to and sent on my way because my standard of riding was good and my speed for the conditions was not dangerous. In fact, my riding was described as “steady” … just over the prescribed limit.
5) Well done Swindon Council. At last an enlighted view. Speed cameras do not stop poor driving, drunks etc. and do not reduce accident rates. Lets have some proper, considered enforcement of the highway code by police who are allowed to use their judgement as to the (in)appropriateness of an individuals road use.
Report abuse
Grey: I quote you “The fact is speed limits are law and you can’t pick and choose which laws you obey because you don’t agree with them. Otherwise what is to stop me from murdering someone and then claiming that I felt it was reasonable force?”
Firstly Martin Luther King said something like You have a moral duty to disobey an unjust law. And I agree. You CAN disobey an unjust law. Take fox-hunting, the smoking ban and mobile phones in cars - all regularly flaunted by people who feel it is unjust.
And you can lawfully kill someone if the force is reasonable but you would have to change you plea to manslaughter as a defence of “necessity” is not available to murder. If you want further reading, research the case of R v Dudley and Stephens 1884 where two sailors killed and ate the cabin boy to survive while adrift in a life boat!
However I would not recommend emulating Tony “Shotgun” Martin of Norfolk!
Report abuse
Stephen what the majority of drivers want to know is WHY,WHY, WHY are they suddenly reducing speed limits on 80% of the nations roads just at a time when speed cameras are sprouting up everywhere and congestion charging is on the agenda…coincidence…I think not!
Report abuse
Stephen , you talk more like a highways engineer than a driver of any experience.
No one wants to break the law but at the same time when you have travelled the same road safely at up to 70 MPH (yes roads were 70MPH before 1974) for 35 plus years, why should those roads now become congested and restricted to 40MPH? We really need an answer on this.
Report abuse
BRIAN(2 - Name one road which used to be 70mph and is now 40mph!!
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, Martin Luther King said ‘An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who WILLINGLY ACCEPTS THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT IN ORDER TO AROUSE THE CONSCIENCE OF THE COMMUNITY OVER ITS INJUSTICE, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
He also said, ‘A lie cannot live.’
Report abuse
Y mab,
Every NSL road in britain used to be 70MPH before the petrol crisis of the mid seventies, then we had a blanket speed limit of 50 mph for a couple of years, then the govt of the time raised the NSL on single carriageway roads to 60MPH and dual carriageways back to 70MPH.
Many of the 60MPH single carriageway roads now have stretches on them that are 40 mph when they used to be 60 mph five or more years ago and 70MPH pre 1974.
Hope you enjoyed the history lesson.
Report abuse
Before my time Brian(2), I’m only in my 20’s :o)
Report abuse
As I’ve said many times befire on these forums…
WHERE is the Institute of Advanced Motorists in all this??
How about a few posts from IAM members on this?
The articles they write in the S/star motoring section never seem to address what I would call any REAL motoring issues - They are always pretty boring and benign really.
Come on IAM - lets hear your view on this -
Come off the fence please! it’s obviously a very “hot” topic - we’d love to see either some posts on here - or better still - a good article in the S/Star motoring column from you!
Report abuse
And Y mab Darogan …
As we established before .. remember the thread on “computers during the war?” where you were hopelessly wrong ?
-
Please take note of what Brian (2) says - and get your facts right.
Claiming that you were too young to remember as you weren’t there is a cop out. There must be many things in your life that you do, that require knowledge of events that occured before you were born.
There is nothing stopping you from doing simple research before you operate keyboard - good grief ! - all you need to do is a simple google search - how difficult is that?
Report abuse
I feel sorry for you growing up in these times. Motoring was much more pleasurable in those days.
Even though we didn’t have disc brakes all round, turbo chargers , aibags and four wheel drive at least we have petrol abot 30p a GALLON and nice open roads with little restriction.
Report abuse
Anon - finally someone talking some sense! i regularly drive through 30mph zones and while i agree there should be speed restrictions in most areas i find myself constantly checking my speedometer to check i’m not going over the spees limit and therefore not keeping my eyes on the road at all times!
Report abuse
Brian (2)
At the risk of sounding like the famous Monty Pyhton “four yorkshireman sketch”
(see the electric cigarrettes thread for full dialogue)
30p a gallon ? - Expensive !! when I started driving in 1964, it was 4/10p a GALLON (four shillings and ten pence - about 24 1/2 P a gallon ), - and so you could buy 4 galons with a pound NOTE - and get change !!
and only crept up to 33p a gallon by 1973 (and when the fuel crises started late 73 -it went up to 50+ p a gallon overnght - and it’s been downhill ( or going up in price) ever since.
Report abuse
Y Mab,
Re your comment No. 14.
A car is only dangerous in the wrong hands, just as a Guns, explosives, electricity, gas and many other things on the planet are.
The secret is learning how to control them and use them to your advantage.
Report abuse
Huw: Thank you for googling the full Martin Luther King quote. I am encouraged by your contribution that speeding motorists are in fact “expressing the highest respect for the law.”
However, its a pity you wern’t representing me when I was charged with Dangerous Driving because Judge Michael Manders called me a “menace on the road.” I hasten to add that I was formerly found not guilty of Dangerour Driving but my plea of Driving Without Due Care and Attention was accepted.
Report abuse
the arsonists are an insult to the memory of this dead child, evil people who just like driving fast - make them slow down
Report abuse
Brian, do what I do occasionally: go for a couple of circuits of the “EVO Triangle” in North Wales.
You don’t even need a small sports car to enjoy the experience (although it does help ;-))
Report abuse
I loved the lines in this story! The arsonists then poured a full can of petrol over the top and set it on fire. Sub-officer Alan Wilson, of Wellington fire station, described it as a “deliberate attack” he must have a career in the police our Alan what a deduction! personally I think we in Shropshire should follow Swindons lead and use other means to make our roads safer than bolster the Govt coffers!
Report abuse
Just another thought.
All the supporters of speed cameras above, I suspect, are confusing “contributory” and “causative”.
Exceeding a speed limit may be “contributory” in a road accident but is not necessarily the “causative” factor.
Report abuse
Y Mab Darogan said:
“Name one road which used to be 70mph and is now 40mph!!”
- several sections of the EP (A442) in Telford
Report abuse
Robe, telford - no section of the EP is 40mph it is 60mph along the EP.
Brian(2)and Askeric dotcom. Its a fact that the majority of accidents are caused by elderly drivers who think they are superb at driving.
In my view once you get over the age of 45 you should sit your driving test and have a medical to ensure you are fit to drive every 2 years that would cut down on accidents and subsequently the need for speeding camera’s
Report abuse
It’s funny how the “speed kills” and “there’s no reason to break the speed limit” fanatics come out with their one liners and then quickly disappear once more sensible arguments against stupid speed limits and speed cameras get thrown back at them.
It’s encouraging to see the majority of sensible comments on here are against speed cameras and silly speed limits, maybe, just maybe this country will see sense soon and revolt against these office bound people who think they know what makes a safe road when in fact they should listen to the people who actually use the roads.
Report abuse
Spindrift,
Thanks for info on the EVO triangle, is that where all speed cameras mysteriously disappear? …;-)
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, you know very well (#57) that I am a supporter of speed cameras or any policy measures which encourage more people to walk or cycle and recognise that roads are shared space.
She Ra (#58) may be interested in supporting the road safety campaign, BRAKE.
BRAKE supporters include the Formula 1 racing driver, Eddie Irvine, best-selling author, Jacqueline Wilson, broadcaster, Nick Ross and GMTV-presenter, Lorraine Kelly.
Report abuse
It is not a surprise to me to see so many anti-speed camera comments (and tacit support for breaking the law) from BRIAN(2) and spindrift, both of whom are vocal supporters of extremist groups like Safe Speed, ABD and Drivers’ Alliance (see http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/13/group-to-air-views-of-drivers/ ).
To find out more about the groups above, read these articles by journalist George Monbiot on his website 1) ‘They call themselves the voice of the driver. But who do they really represent?’ (Guardian, February 3, 2004); 2) ‘They call themselves libertarians…’ December 20th 2005; 3) ’Paul Smith and Safe Speed - the Self-Exposure of a Crank’ December 22, 2005.
Report abuse
Brain would you rather your child hit by a car doing 30 or one going 45? Doesn’t matter how good the drive if a child runs out into the road 45 will more than likely kill them. Cars speed passed our school and playing fields all the time and if every car was foced to drive at 30 a child in an accident might stand a chance. Safety not drivers rights should be the most important factor and in built up areas where these cameras should be placed all drivers who speed should be fined.
Report abuse
Sadie, I am all for 30 mph limits in built up areas but the Areas which are now 40 MPH that used to be NSL are crazy. As for my child being hit at 30 MPH, I would teach them the basic rules about crossing roads etc that I was taught and it’s never caused me to be injured in my 50plus years of crossing all sorts of busy and main roads.
Y Mab, I agree that ALL drivers should take regular tests whether elderly or young.
Report abuse
Y mab Darogan.
I find your comment in #63 insulting to say the least.
I am NOT going to argue with you, but the FACT is there is NO substitute for experience.
I have said before on these columns that I have discussed my driving techniques and knowledge with Police, Advanced drivers and Driver Trainers, and my views/ techniques always mirrors theirs exactly.
So….
I DON’T share your viwws AT ALL on the (lack of) skills of older drivers, or the cause of accidents being attributed to that group.
I HAVE NEVER EVER said ……
(in your words: “caused by elderly drivers who think they are superb at driving”) that…
I was/am a superb driver.
As a professionally qualifed Chartered Engineer, I am NOT so stupid as to claim being “superb” at anything!
Experienced: YES, superb: NO.
I object to your criticism in this case.
I might be older than you, but I have much more experience of driving, and life on my side than you - and you will do well to respect that.
An apology please.
Regards
Ask ericdotcom
Report abuse
Hi Sadie J.
I think your views on it being preferable for a child being hit at 30 rather than 45 Mph is simplistic in the least.
You say :
“Cars speed passed* our school and playing fields all the time and if every car was foced to drive at 30 a child in an accident might stand a chance”. ( I assume you meant cars speed “past” - not passed)
Are you saying that there isn’t a speed limit here? - becuase it sounds very much to me that there is one, and it’s likely to be 30Mph or even 20Mph if there really is a school about.
NOW - if that is the case, lets do a little logical thinking here….
A child doesn’t “suddenly run into the road from nowhere”.
There are many signs that the experienced driver will pick up on - some of these are:
* the presence of a school, play area
* the time of day - is it school opening /closing time?
* crossings
* Children in groups exiting a gateway
* a ball rolling into the road
* the ice cream van
* The group of mums talking on the pavement and not taking note of their youing children
* Parked cars and the possibility of a child that was walking on the pavement deciding to leave the pavment and run between them to cross the road
* The group of girls one side of the road, and the group of boys “looking” from the other side! - and fancying their chances!
* The overall “scene” of the road ahead - are we entering a town/village -where are the shops / is there playing fields nearby?
* Generally - NOTHING should come as a surprise!
I could go on and on ….
NOW … lets go one step further …
Suppose a vehicle is travelling at 30 Mph, as you suggest, and in fact hits someone at 30.
Then: that must mean that either the driver was paying NO attention, since no braking was applied, or that person appeared instantly, from nowhere.
Neither case can really be true, and it follows that:
if a driver is paying proper attention, then he/she will have taken avoiding action having spotted the impending hazard, action which may be:
* changing course,
* reducing speed, or even in some cases,
* accelerating to clear a hazard BEFORE it becomes crtical.
You can see from this that speed by itself is NOT the only factor, and in fact what is MUCH more important is OBSERVATION and being aware.
Drinving in this manner will always result in a safe speed being employed, which may well be significantly below the posted speed limit in difficult cicumstances.
Report abuse
“Camera’s save lives”
Ok, please advise me of one single accident which resulted in injury or a fatality that the ONLY factor was speed.
Oh, there isn’t any!!!
The camera’s don’t stop the real criminals, those with no insurance, no tax, no licence, no MOT, drunk drivers, drug drivers.
REMOVE ALL THE CAMERA’S AND BRING BACK POLICE OFFICERS, THEY DO SAVE LIVES!!!
Report abuse
I drive approx 20,000 miles per annum at the moment and have been driving large amounts of miles for work purposes since the late seventies, sometimes in excess of 50,000 miles per year all over the country and on all types of roads.
I see (more and more frequently too), on a hourly basis, examples of bad, careless driving that makes me cringe, far more than I used to do. These are things like bad lane discipline round islands, lack of attention,cutting dangerous bends, pulling out in front of fast moving traffic when not safe to do so etc etc but I very rarely encounter drivers driving what I consider to be too fast for the roads/conditions.
Is it any wonder that 95% of fatal accidents are not caused by speeding alone when the majority of bad driving on the road today is just poor driving skills and lack of attention?
Speed cameras are not going to improve the standard of driving on Britains roads or significantly reduce accident figures on their own.
Report abuse
Spin: not sure where the Evo Triangle is but Friday morning I drove over B4391, over the Berwyns to Bala. So relaxing and quite safe at 90mph in a modest car I was driving.
In fact that same morning I drove around Town Walls at 40mph and it is quite wide and safe. I saw 2 pedestrians on the wide pavements and no cyclists. I was slowed don to 30mph when I caught the only other car up. 20mph is ridiculous!
Report abuse
Whist Ask denies being a “superb driver”, I would like to say I am. Doing 40mph over Town Walls speed bumps, 90mph in a modest car over Berwyns and going airbone over the bridge at Pedair-Ffordd (I think it was there), all in one day (Friday to be exact).
This car is now for sale if anyone is interested in buying it. It also holds the record for Telford to Haweswater, Cumbria of 2hrs.
Report abuse
Lucy,
The triangle starts just north of Cerrigydrudion. I agree, also, that the B4391 is another great driving road. Maybe a “run out” should be organised between yourself, me, askeric, and Brian that takes in some of the best driving roads in our vicinity!
Thoughts?
I have organised such run-outs before.
Report abuse
I note that cycling is very often “advocated” on threads like this one. However I was horrified to read the Transport for London figure on pedestrian injuries.
For every 42 pedestrian deaths caused by cars, 1 pedestrian is killed by a cyclist. When considering the speed and weight of a bicyle this is shocking!
And 18% of cyclists jump red-light, causing havoc to other road users.
I’m sorry, but cyclists need to get their own house in order before they criticise motorists.
Report abuse
Perhaps Y Mab would like to come and show us older drivers just how it’s done?
Report abuse
A Run Out sounds like fun to me, but I’m only doing it if Huw Peach agrees to cycle it and so prove the benefits of cycling that he “advocates”.
Report abuse
Here’s some more interesting reading about speed cameras and even more interesting are the comments! It seems, at last, that the British public are realising the truth about speed cameras.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053865/Speed-cameras-saved-HALF-lives-ministers-claim.html
Report abuse
Sounds like a plan, Lucy! We can all start out at 10 a.m., head off to the “triangle”, do a couple of laps, and get to an agreeable hostelry in Bala for - say - 2 p.m.
Whilst there, we can book a table for Huw for the following day’s dinner service
Report abuse
Spin: 10am! My passion is hill-walking hence I find myself driving in some great places. I like to start driving at 6ish, hitting Snowdonia etc at day break in the winter. By 10am I would be on top of a mountain!
Report abuse
It looks like Huw’s away. I do hope he’s not tearing up the German Autobahn at 20MPH and upsetting those nice Germans.
Report abuse
Lucy, the Midlands section of a certain “well known” on-line car community is currently organising a North Wales run-out!
You’d be more than welcome to join in.
Report abuse
If you would like to find out more about who is behind astroturf campaigns (fake grassroots campaigns) which support illegal arson attacks, then read the articles in #67 as a starter.
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’ in answer to #77, I researched your claims about cyclists on the Transport for London website using the document, ‘Collisions and casualties on London’s roads 2007′, published October 2008).
I couldn’t find the statistics to back up your claim or to substantiate your outrage.
What page were they on, ‘Lucy W’?
I thought, though, that Shropshire people interested in making their roads safer and more sustainable might be interested in some facts from the Transport for London site.
On page 52 of the report I mentioned earlier, there is a pie chart showing ‘Pedestrian casualties in Greater London by associated vehicle type 2007′.
These statistics paint a slightly different picture than the one that ‘Lucy W’ spun.
Cars caused 3,543 pedestrian casualties (67.5%)
Powered 2-wheelers caused 516 pedestrian casualties (9.8%)
Buses/coaches caused 437 pedestrian casualties (8.3%)
Goods vehicles caused 389 pedestrian casualties (7.4%)
Taxis caused 161 pedestrian casualties (3.1%)
Other vehicles caused 135 pedestrian casualties (2.6%)
Cyclists caused 71 pedestrian casualties (1.4%).
Casualties, in this context, do not mean deaths.
I agree that cyclists should not be immune from criticism, but if readers are not familiar with ‘Lucy W’ then it might be advisable to ask ‘her’ for CONTEXT when she quotes statistics.
Report abuse
Huw: It would seem that I have access to priveledged statistics. However, I was focusing on fatalaties and not casualties that you quote. You also need to look at several years of data as well to get a mean, medium and mode to make sense of statistics.
As I recall for every 33 pedestrian injuries caused by a car, 1 is caused by a cyclist.
However if you take your statistics you will see that 3,543 divided by 71 is 50, so for every 50 casualties caused by cars, 1 is caused by a cyclist in 2007. So we are not really poles apart on this one, other than I am shocked at this statistic considering the speed and volumes involved whereas you dont sem surprised at the statistic.
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, I am glad that you now feel that several years of data are necessary before drawing any conclusions.
In another tangential discussion about glaciers melting ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/09/29/economic-woe-to-last-15-months/ comment #42) you DIDN’T SEEM TO THINK THIS WAS NECESSARY.
In the above thread, you said that we are ‘heading into an ice age’ on the basis of one glacier, which you say is advancing.
This wilfully ignores data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service and the United Nations, which clearly shows, USING SEVERAL YEARS OF DATA, that glaciers ARE RETREATING AT AN UNPRECEDENTED RATE.
Report abuse
Where do you think public opprobrium and counter-measures should be at their strongest?
At those most responsible or those least responsible for deaths on the road?
Report abuse
May I enquire as to why Mr Peach is permitted to term groups like SafeSpeed and the ABD as extremist, whereas demonstrating that George Monbiot is equally as extreme in his views is disallowed by the mods on here?
You have my e-mail address.
Ta.
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’ could you give me the reference for your claims (#77 and #87) about fatalities?
Report abuse
Yes there does seem to be a bias
Report abuse
Huw, I definately agree with you .
The people who cause the most accidents should be held responsible for their actions, which at the moment is about 93% of people who are not actually exceeding the speed limit when they decide to contribute to a fatal accident.
Usually, careless, irresponsible, poorly skilled drivers, aimless pedestrians and careless cyclists.
Report abuse
In 1995 George Monbiot was awarded a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement.
The award was presented by Nelson Mandela.
Monbiot has written before in his weekly newspaper column, criticising extremist groups who support attacking speed cameras.
Noone from the groups I have mentioned has written to distance themselves from comments laughing about the arson attack.
Are those who tacitly support breaking the law not extremists then, spindrift?
Report abuse
Huw: Re Glaciers. They require a very different statistical analysis. You are really over simplifing the issue.
Re statistics for fatalaties, ask Transport for London as I am unable to give out priviledged information that I recieve in a professional capacity.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that this Monibot fella critises people who damage cameras whist accepting some award from Mr Mandella who admitted to terrorism and murder at his trial and refused to denounce terrorism whilst incaserated?
Pot calling the kettle black!
Report abuse
Huw,
SafeSpeed and the ABD have never voiced their support for arson attacks on speed cameras.
Monbiot has a clear track record of being rabidly anti-car, and in his book “Heat: How To Stop The Planet Burning” he labels pro-car supporters as “anti-social bar stewards (sic)”.
I particularly find his views on public transport in the book objectionable:
“Coach travel would be slightly better [than the train] but I will be damned if I’m going round the country in the current system,” he says. “If you’ve got loads of time and very little money – if you’re unemployed, say – the coach is the way to go. But if you need to get anywhere that day, it’s unusable. I would like to see bus lanes on all the motorways and bus stations outside city centres so buses don’t have to battle through the traffic.”
And I hardly think that an award bestowed some 13 years ago, for environmental reasons, gives Monbiot any right whatsoever to comment publicly on matters relating to road safety in this country. He is an eco-toff, not a road safety expert.
The late Paul Smith, however, dedicated 7 years of his life scientifically examining the reasons for the large number of road deaths in this country, and - this is crucial - how to reduce that number. It just so happens that he deduced that speed cameras really are not the answer, and that the public were (and still are) being duped by their effectiveness.
George Monbiot labelled Paul Smith as a “crank”, yet a couple of days later - in his own column - he stated, “Today’s crank has often proved to be tomorrow’s visionary”
If it helps, history is full of cranks whose ideas have come to be accepted:
Sir Frank Whittle - inventor of the jet engine in Britain was held up by indifference from the Air Ministry from 1937 to 1941!
Scott Russel’s Soliton wave - ignored until 1960’s!
Galileo - placed under house arrest, and books burned for suggesting that the earth orbited the sun
Béchamp - actually achieved everything Pasteur did, but better and by several years sooner, and yet got no credit at all.!!
So in answer to your question, Huw, no they are not. When it comes to exceeding a speed limit, there are - I suspect - 15 million felons on the road each day and I’d say 99% of the time it goes un-noticed; purely down to the fact that it is 99% of the time a victimless crime.
Most pro-motoring groups actively support increased roads policing.
Hardly extremist.
Is it?
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, the message about glaciers from the World Glacier Monitoring Service and the United Nations is unequivocal; they are shrinking.
Rather like your credibility.
I would invite anyone, who agrees with me, to check anything dodgy that ‘Lucy W’ says. A couple of minutes using reputable, referenced sources on the internet will suffice to blow her arguments to smithereens. If you are not sure about the source, use the SOURCEWATCH website.
If the road traffic fatalities statistics exist, then it is incumbent on YOU, ‘Lucy W’, not me, to prove it. I believe they are as credible as your statistical analysis.
As for Nelson Mandela, I had a feeling you wouldn’t be a fan.
Mandela spent 27 years in prison for acts committed fighting a repressive and violent system of apartheid, which disenfranchised the vast majority of the South African population.
You were cheerleading a criminal act against something, which a number of drivers find oppressive, but which, most people believe, saves lives.
Mandela’s policy of reconciliation with former enemies after his release from prison turned him into one of the most inspiring political figures of the 20th century, and earned him a Nobel Peace Prize.
The casual way you cheer on criminal acts is only going to make me more determined than ever to dig up astroturf campaigns and expose who is behind them.
Report abuse
Here’s some more interesting reading about speed cameras and even more interesting are the comments! It seems, at last, that the British public are realising the truth about speed cameras.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053865/Speed-cameras-saved-HALF-lives-ministers-claim.html
Report abuse
Huw: I think Spindrift (#96) summed it up, and what a coincidence that the made a Galileo comparison as I had some time ago - Great minds think alike.
Thanks for the lecture on Mandella. It just supports the hypocrasy of Monboit, preaching against minor acts of vandalsim, but shaking hands with a terrorist.
It was interesting that we had a 90th birthday bash for Madella, but they did nothing for him in South Africa. I think if you travel to African Nations you will see a different world view of him and his politics.
I expect I have a different, broader, view point because of my EXPERIENCE of surviving a terrorist attack.
As for advocating checking dodgy statements by me, aren’t you a hypocrit as I had frequentky laid down th gauntlet for you to appologise for accusing me of false eco-credentials or allow me to send you proof?
Report abuse
The Daily Mail often does not print comments which disagree with its editorial line.
Report abuse
Ah, spindrift, good to have you back in discussion defending one astroturf campaign, which urgently needs to be dug up and exposed for the public: Safe Speed.
On its site, among other things, Safe Speed disputes the truth about climate change, as David Attenborough refers to it.
In the past, I have named plenty of institutions, which confirm that climate change is being affected by humans ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/13/group-to-air-views-of-drivers/ comment #18).
I have then challenged you to produce ONE INSTITUTION, which disputes it.
Mysteriously you disappear each time.
Perhaps you could answer this question this time and attempt to prove that Safe Speed, the ABD and the Drivers Alliance’s arguments about climate are supported by peer-reviewed science.
This is your chance to prove the people behind these organisations are not cranks, using self-serving arguments to justify their extreme positions on issues like speed and the environment.
Unfortunately you will not be able to.
Report abuse
Comment No. 100, Huw, where do you get your evidence from?
Report abuse
Huw,
Maths ,as well as english, is obviously not your strong subject either.
The statistics that you quote are actually very close to those of Lucy with 1 death caused by cyclists for every 50 car caused deaths….not a very good figure for cyclists when they rarely go over 20 mph and have a far less power to weight ratio don’t you think?
So WHY are cyclists so dangerous ,Huw?
It surely can’t be speed!
Report abuse
Also when you consider the average cyclist only covers about 5 miles per day and the average motorist covers about 50 miles per day then that ratio comes down to 1 in 5 per mile covered….very scary.
When I’m out walking I will be more wary of dangerous cyclists than dangerous drivers now.
Report abuse
Yes Brian(2) I would like Hugh to provide evidence of his claim in #100.
If he cant provide it, should we all adopt his stance that his opinion is not worthwhile?
Personally, I dont think these blogs should be bogged down with references to everything that is said. I prefer to share experiences and knowledge that cant be obtained from the internet.
Report abuse
The Daily Mail often do not post comments which I leave, BRIAN(2).
Hard to verify, I know, but true.
Report abuse
spindrift, you referred to speed cameras as ‘roadside terrorists’ in comment #9.
And you say you are not an extremist.
Interesting.
Report abuse
If readers are wondering what an ‘astroturf campaign’ is (#101), then I recommend the SOURCEWATCH website.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
‘Astroturf refers to apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms.’
Report abuse
Hugh Teach: Re astroturfers, well thats the game of politics I’m afraid. This is what come from democracy.
However I am wondering if the Green Party is one of these astroturfers as Caroline Lucas, Leader of Green Party, is voting AGAINST increasing the of targets for green bio-diesel in the European Parliment. Can I predict a board job with an oil company when she retires from “politics”.
Hmmmmm????????
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’ said in #105 that she wanted evidence that the Daily Mail do not always print posts which I submit.
I thought ‘Lucy’s desire to verify what I said was quite a reasonable request, so I came up with this experiment.
This morning there was a very unpleasant story on the Daily Mail website about a man in a speeding car who killed a girl in Oxford, who had a glittering future before her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082768/Illegal-immigrant-killed-brilliant-Oxford-graduate-roaring-red-light-deported–human-rights.html#comments
I left the following comment at 10.30 this morning to test out my assertion.
“I think the emphasis in this report could have been more on making our roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, children and other vulnerable road users? Couldn’t the reporter have used it as an opportunity to give information about the wider context?
3,172 people were killed on Britain’s roads in 2006.
Cyclists, pedestrians and motorbike and moped riders account for 45% of all deaths (1,420 deaths in 2006)
A fifth of people who die on roads (21%) are on foot.
Children under 16 accounted for almost a third of all pedestrian casualties (33%) and 23% of all cyclist casualties in 2006.
Perhaps the emphasis could have been on anti-speeding measures in built-up areas like speed cameras.
It seems that this very sad and shocking story is being used as an excuse to bash all immigrants, when the truth of the matter is that this is one incredibly irresponsible individual case.”
I accept that the Daily Mail has every right to pursue its line about immigrants, but think the fact that they did not print this post, which adds a perspective which is different from its editorial line, is very revealing.
If anyone doesn’t believe me, please feel free to cut and paste my words and submit it to the Daily Mail website.
Report abuse
Huw Peach seems to think that Lucy, Sprindrift, David, myself and anyone else on this debate that disagrees with him, are part of some organisation that are out to diminish the success rate of speed cameras and democracy.
I can quite categorically state that I have never met any of the above and have had no contact with them apart from theses threads.
I myself, have worked for Her Majesty in the past and have signed the official secrets act.
I have worked alongside highways engineers and have studied in the past many reports relating to roads, speeed limit changes and road traffic accident reports.
Unfortunately, Huw seems to take his “real life” experiences from the rather dodgy Brake website, what he reads in the guardian and childrens books.
Report abuse
So WHY are cyclists so dangerous Huw?
Report abuse
Huw Peach in “Even Too Extreme for The Daily Mail” shocker!
Report abuse
Quite correct, Huw. I cannot answer your question. I cannot prove that the groups you mention have voiced their views on peer-reviewed science. But by the same token, it is not my place to do so.
The internet is a wonderful thing; it means I can engage in interesting discourse with the likes of yourself for example. It also means that one is free to ask the moderators / founders of said groups, directly, what their views are on a particular subject that you may feel strongly about. I may post their angle, but it is certainly not up to me - especially not being a member of any said groups - to confirm the basis of their claims. I suggest you do so yourself, and post the results on here.
In the meantime, I do feel that the veracity of peer-review observations are taken on trust. Let me repeat that because it’s important - the data reported is accepted on trust IMHO. The scientific experiments are not checked by the peer reviewer. Thus, outright fraud is very easy to get through the peer review process. It is only caught later when other scientists try to repeat the published experiments. Peer review cannot guarantee that that a paper is factual, it can only (at best) ensure that the methodology is sound and the data presented is complete.
Report abuse
Could spindrift explain what was ‘extreme’ about my contribution (#110), which might explain why the Daily Mail website moderators decided to exclude it?
Surely it was just bringing a little extra context and a few facts to the debate, which diverged from the Mail’s anti-immigrant editorial line.
Report abuse
spindrift in #114 you said you are not a member of any of the groups above.
However, in this thread ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/13/group-to-air-views-of-drivers/ #6 ) after voicing your support for all the said groups, you say you have met the Drivers’ Alliance’s Peter Roberts.
You also seem remarkably knowledgeable about people ‘behind the scenes’ in Safe Speed and ABD, who, you say, are making policy decisions.
If climate change denial is one of their policies, and you are so close to them, then couldn’t you ask one of them for help debating this in this public forum?
Or better still, if their case is so strong about climate change and speed cameras, they could surely join this discussion, using their own names, with a little nudge from you.
Couldn’t they?
Report abuse
Hugh: Re climate change. The last 12mths show a cooling - get over it! A few good volcano erruptions and just whatch the planet plumet into an ice age.
Report abuse
Once again, Huw, you drift totally off the track of the main debate, putting your own totally irrelevent, “let’s knock the motorist in general” diatribe…..Is it any wonder the Mail won’t post your comments? Maybe the star ought to take the same policy.
Report abuse
So once again, I ask you, Huw.
WHY are cyclists so dangerous?
Report abuse
Ground Control to Planet Peach.
To repeat: I am not a member of the groups you mention. I do, however, pledge my support. My pledges are via keyboard not current account. I have met Mr Roberts. Once.
I am not “knowledgeable” about the people behind the scenes at the groups you mention. I am merely recognising the fact that there ARE policy makers in the organisations; much in the same way that the Green Party has policy makers, and BRAKE, and Transport2000 etc etc etc.
I am not “close” to these decision makers, or organisation founders, or the forum moderators, or anyone else involved in the running of these groups. So if you are so interested in their views on green issues, why not - as I mentioned - visit the websites of the groups in question yourself, and voice your queries there.
Hope that helps.
Message ends.
Ground Control out.
Report abuse
Huw: If you look on the Incinerator thread, you will see that someone has backed up what I heard on the radio with references to bonfire pollution, by reputable bodies - stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Report abuse
spindrift, let’s compare your public disavowal of knowledge of the groups above with what you said on Jun 16th, 2008 at 7:44 pm about Peter Roberts and the Drivers’ Alliance.
‘Personally, I think that Peter has made a very bold move in conceptualizing and - more importantly - actioning Drivers Alliance. I have met Peter and he is as passionate about motoring as he is lucid. Maybe in the future as Drivers Alliance evolves, the “green” angle will be explored but I suspect that initially it will focus on the day-to-day issues that affect all motorists.
Peter will not be the only driver (!) behind the group; the ABD and SafeSpeed both have a number of people behind the scenes who make policy decisions.’
You sounded very much in the know then.
Which of your statements should we believe, spindrift?
Report abuse
spindrift wonders why I don’t ‘visit the websites of the groups in question [my]self, and voice [my] queries there.’
Because it’s far more rewarding, exposing the manipulations and climate-lies of these groups in a PUBLIC forum, where EVERYONE can see them.
Democracy depends on ordinary people bringing issues out into the OPEN and discussing them in open, uncensored media.
By giving us all a forum for open and democratic discussion, and connecting people, whose worlds spindrift clearly sees as being planets apart, the Shropshire Star is providing us all with a much better service than the Daily Mail, isn’t it BRIAN(2)?
I will now, for example, have to go and check those bonfire night points, which ‘Lucy W’ mentioned, and will probably learn a lot in the process.
Report abuse
‘Hugh Teach’ please lets us all know what you think of the references re bonfire pollution and tell me why Dr Watshisname and Michael Ryan, who are so clever making pretty report (that you found persuasive) fail to mention incineration pollution from bonfires? Do all those infant deaths factor in large display bonfire? No they don’t. Flawed reseach yet again.
Report abuse
Please calm down, ‘Lucy W’, I will deal with your desperate red herring on another thread.
This thread is about criminals torching something, which, I believe, makes our roads safer.
This thread should also be about those who cheer on this sort of criminal act, who see nothing ‘extreme’ about calling speed cameras ‘roadside terrorists’.
spindrift, who now denies ‘behind the scenes’ knowledge of Safe Speed, ABD and Drivers’ Alliance, interstingly quotes Austin Williams (of the Transport Research Group) in comment #9.
According to the SOURCEWATCH website, the neutral-and plausible-sounding Transport Research Group has ties to the libertarian group, Living Marxism, which viscerally opposes environmentalism, sustainable development and legal regulation.
If it is connected to Living Marxism, then the Transport Research Group needs to be dug up and exposed just as much as the other astroturf campaigns I have mentioned.
Report abuse
So, Huw how can we reduce the enormous amount of deaths on the road that cyclists cause? (one fifth as many as cars).
Obviously speed cameras, humps and reduced speed limits aren’t going to help…maybe the “excellent” brake website will give you some ideas or are they just “anti-car” and don’t real give a “stuff” about road safety in general?
Report abuse
Unlike Spindrift, I am a paying supporter of The ABD and Safespeed although I am obviously not a “voice” for them.
I find that the work that they do in exposing some of the myths and lies about road “safety” that the government and “safety” partnerships try and brainwash us with to be very important and we are now starting to see a swing in the general publics view on speed cameras and ridiculous speed limit changes.
The beauty of these sites , Huw , is that they do have forums which you can voice your opinion on, unlike sites like Brake which can be very one sided.
In fact, the ABD has a very informitive guide and breakdown on the Dept for Transport (2006) guidlines which I can safely say is accurate because I have a hard copy of said guidlines.
If you had researched your speed limits facts on the ABD website, Huw, you would not have made such a fool of yourself as you did when quoting the misleading info from Brake’s biased site when discussing Leighton.
Report abuse
BRIAN(2), ‘Lucy’ has never been able to verify the dodgy statistics about cyclists which she produced in #77.
She then showed that she was making them up by completely changing these statistics in #87, and made utterly unvonvincing comments in the same post about why she couldn’t give the source.
In #86 I gave the following statistics from the London for Transport website, which readers, inspired to dig up astroturf campaigns like the Drivers Alliance, can easily find.
Cars caused 3,543 pedestrian casualties (67.5%)
Powered 2-wheelers caused 516 pedestrian casualties (9.8%)
Buses/coaches caused 437 pedestrian casualties (8.3%)
Goods vehicles caused 389 pedestrian casualties (7.4%)
Taxis caused 161 pedestrian casualties (3.1%)
Other vehicles caused 135 pedestrian casualties (2.6%)
Cyclists caused 71 pedestrian casualties (1.4%)
Cyclists caused 1.4% of casualties (not deaths) in London, BRIAN(2).
Motorised vehicles caused 98.6%.
‘Lucy W’s embarrassing blind-spots about glaciers and the astroturf campaigners’ unforgiveable blind spots about climate change are now matched by your blind spots about speed, BRIAN(2), and your determination (#112, #119 and #125) to lay the blame for road accidents on the people who, in London, are responsible for 1.4% of those accidents.
Report abuse
Readers should believe my statement in #120, as it concurs with other comments I have publicly submitted.
I am not a member of SafeSpeed, or the ABD, or Drivers Alliance. I am not a moderator of the forums for SafeSpeed or Drivers Alliance (I possess not the time to do so, even if I were so inclined); the ABD does not have a discussion forum.
For the avoidance of future doubt, I repeat: I have met with Peter Roberts. Once.
Finally, I would invite impartial readers of this thread to visit the web sites of the groups that Peach mentions. Decide for yourselves.
Report abuse
‘Huw’ Here we go again. You said my bonfire statistics were bogus only for someone else to reveal that they were true - do you like the taste of humble pie or something?
Unfortunatly you haven’t bothered to obtain Fatality figures, available with FOI request, but choose to use casualty figures to discredit me - the two can’t be compared! What a muppet.
And if you want to go on about glaciers, I stated that I had visited the Frans Joesph Glacier twice and it is definately advancing and I dont understand how that fits in with Global Warming. Are you a Frans-Joseph denier? If so, I suggest you go and see for yourself before making a fool of yourself.
Report abuse
Huw, you really must study maths in your free time.
You say 1.4% of casualties are caused by bikes and 67.5% by cars, if you divide one by the other you get a ratio of 48.2 to 1 that means cars are responsible for 48.2 times more casualties than bikes but when you conservatively estimate that cars do ten times the mileage of bikes then you bring that figure down to approx 5 to 1 (hope you are keeping up)it’s a shame you can’t supply A/mvkm figurtes for bikes, it would make interesting reading.
Report abuse
BRIAN(2), to repeat, it seems you are so locked into your speed-is-not-responsible-ideology that you are avoiding the fact that taxis and goods vehicles are cars, too, and that it is desirable for survival chances if buses and motorised 2-wheelers do not drive too fast in built-up areas, too.
Cyclists caused 1.4% of casualties (not deaths) in London, BRIAN(2).
Motorised vehicles caused 98.6%.
Yet you and the Daily Mail internet editorial team insist on wilfully ignoring the bigger picture.
Who benefits most from your manipulative and counter-factual approach?
Report abuse
BRIAN(2), thank you for coming clean on your membership of Safe Speed and the ABD (#127).
I really appreciate it.
For some unfathomable reason you were not as open in another thread when I thought you were part of the Drivers’ Alliance?
( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/27/call-for-reduction-in-road-speed/ #27 )
‘Huw you waffle endlessly about nothing in particular and accuse me and others of all sorts of ridiculouus things.
Which is the lobbying group you refer to that I am supposed to be part of?’
Are ABD, the Drivers’ Alliance and SafeSpeed all the same people?
Report abuse
Huw, you disputed Lucy’s figures that 1 casualty is caused for every 50 CARS, I am merely supporting her facts,using YOUR SUPPLIED figures.
Since when has the DRIVERS ALLIANCE been SAFESPEED and ABD?
You really must read these threads a little better and I hope that you read the road much better than you do these threads because if you are so un observant on the road you really shouildn’t be travelling at even 20 MPH.
I saw a typical example of what you would class a “safe” driver this morning, Huw.
He was travelling at 35-40MPH on a NSL road, naturally holding everyone up. He overtook a parked car without signalling, nearly stopped at a mini island when the road was clear and he should have carried on. The when he came to a main island he approached in the left lane and turned right without indicating once. No doubt in your eyes he was travelling “safely” because he never exceeded 40 MPH. I see examples like this on a hourly basis Huw and I hope that you aren’t one but believe me, these people are far more dangerous than someone travelling at 50 MPH in a 40 MPH limit that was once 70MPH and has only been reduced in the last 12 months.
Report abuse
Peach said:
“Are ABD, the Drivers’ Alliance and SafeSpeed all the same people?”
They all have publicly accessible web-sites. Why not ask them directly?
Report abuse
Because this is a public forum with a wider audience, where climate change denialists’ arguments and their support for criminal attacks on speed cameras can be exposed.
Report abuse
Huw, you disputed Lucy’s figures that 1 casualty is caused for every 50 CARS, I am merely supporting her facts,using YOUR SUPPLIED figures.
Since when has the DRIVERS ALLIANCE been SAFESPEED and ABD?
You really must read these threads a little better and I hope that you read the road much better than you do these threads because if you are so un observant on the road you really shouildn’t be travelling at even 20 MPH
Report abuse
I saw a typical example of what you would class a “safe” driver this morning, Huw.
He was travelling at 35-40MPH on a NSL road, naturally holding everyone up. He overtook a parked car without signalling, nearly stopped at a mini island when the road was clear and he should have carried on. The when he came to a main island he approached in the left lane and turned right without indicating once. No doubt in your eyes he was travelling “safely” because he never exceeded 40 MPH. I see examples like this on a hourly basis Huw and I hope that you aren’t one but believe me, these people are far more dangerous than someone travelling at 50 MPH in a 40 MPH limit that was once 70MPH and has only been reduced in the last 12 months.
Report abuse