Sad Welsh police

[Sybarite]

A few years ago whilst driving in my French registered car in Surrey a police car turned round to follow me . After being on my tail for about 5 miles he pulled me over to to say that I had done 34 mph in a area limited to 30 mph (it was nevertheless not a built up area). There followed a long lecture about road safety and how I was a particular threat to society.

It was with the greatest of difficulty that I kept my cool and did not reply that I had had my license since before he was born and despite having raced and rallied I had never had an accident.

Here was a cop out to show a "French" person who was the boss. It was not provoked by my driving but he was out to get me when he saw the plates.

John


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Metabarca]

The police and foreigners

<Here was a cop out to show a "French" person who was the boss>
Probably he'd just been to France and had it done to him! This happened to me years ago before the Calais-Paris motorway was built. Rollercoaster road, lots of lorries, very straight, white line in the centre. Everyone overtaking in perfect safety miles from any houses. Local cops at the bottom of the hill creaming off the Brits and letting the locals go!
Luckily, I 'forgot' my French, as did my father (who was also fluent, his parents being French), and despite trying oh so hard to understand what they wanted (us to pay a fine), we couldn't, so they gave up and let us go.

It seems to me that speed cameras are a pretty blunt instrument when it comes to making you cut your speed. The one time I was done here in Italy, I received the photo and fine about two months after the event. I couldn't even remember where I'd been! Far more of a deterrent was when I was stopped in Slovenia by the police who pointed out politely and in English that I'd been doing 50 in a 45 kph zone. The rest of the day (and since), I was very careful. It has to be said, too, that speed limits in Slovenia are sensible, which in Italy often they ain't, yo-yoing from 80 to 30 to 50 and back again for no reason.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.comoy.com/saillinks.html>http://www.comoy.com/saillinks.html</A>

 

[Jacket]

I don't know if its the same everywhere, but in Cambridgeshire (at least they claim) speed cameras are only put in places where there's been at least 3 serious accidents or fatalites. This strikes me as a good idea, as you know there's a good reson for them being there, and so feel slighly less bad about them.

Agree we need some on highstreets, outside schools etc.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ecudc]

but (as far as we know) there is no way to avoid getting cancer. We can avoid peeps getting smashed up by cars.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ecudc]

The same is true where I live as well although the rule does not apply to portable speed cameras. I have noticed a large increase in unusual cameras on motorways near the Midlands where I spend quite a bit of time. A friend up there says that they are the start of clocking our speed on the motorway between junctions. If your average speed is above 70 they will book you. As yet its not been introduced and is in the testing stage.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

All I was trying to point out is that percentage wise, deaths caused by cars is such a small figure compared to overall deaths, (it has also stayed reasonably constant over the years) that you will not be able to get the figure much lower than is - even with a proliferation of cameras and speed checks.

With the business that I run, no matter how careful we are, how many procedures are in place, statistically we will have a couple of hiccups a year within the business. We are unable to erradicate them completely.

The government and police now need to acknowledge that this is the lowest figure obtainable and stop harrassing the motorist to fill their coffers.

<hr width=100% size=1>How much to fill'er up!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by TwoStroke on 01/08/2003 11:42 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Jacket]

Rubbish.

Its a fact that the faster you're travelling when an accident accurs, the higher the chance of a fatality.

Its also a fact that there are lots of people breaking the speed limit.

Therefore, its a fact that if everyone stuck to the speed limit, there would be fewer deaths. The only matter for debate is how many fewer deaths.


The statistics you used are meningless, given most deaths are due to old age, and so expected. Its unnecessary deaths that need to be cut down. So if you can obtain the number of deaths of people less than 70, say, or accidental deaths per year, then your argumant may have some weight.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

If you have the time and would like the real facts about speed contributing to deaths then have a look at this, compiled from 8 police forces over 6 months. Makes very interesting reading:

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Facts&Figures/Facts&Figures_Home.htm>here</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>How much to fill'er up!

 

[Jacket]

When TRL Report 323 was first published it caused a lot of debate in one of the professional journals (the New Civil Engineer, I think), expressing concern that the results might be misrepresented. that concern seems justified, because that is exactly what has happened here.

The report looks at factors that cuased the accidents. If this is the criteria used, then yes, speeding doesn't seem all that serious.

However, what really matters is how many casualties are caused by speeding, something not covered in this report. In other words, in many of the accidents (85%ish, I think, as I mentioned in an earlier post), one or more of the people involved were speeding. Even though the speeding did not cause the accident, in many cases it lead to more serious injuries or death. It would be very hard to produce actual figures for the effect of speeding, as its a very subjective area, but as far as I can remember, various experienced and respected experts suggested that if speed limits were always obeyed, fatalities would be reduced by about 50% (give or take 25%, depending who was asked), with a similar reduction in serious injuries.

I'll be the first to admit to speeding, but the more time I spend in road research, the slower I've found I'm driving. I'm totally convinced that speed limits save lives, and I'm no longer willing to risk killing someone just so that i get to my detination a few minutes quicker.

I'll shut up now, because I seem to have monopolised this thread. Thats what happens when someone brings up to of my pet hates (speeding and dislike of the police) all in one thread.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Romeo]

Welsh police

Speed reduction not only saves lives it makes streets more pleasant for walking, cycling and living in.

It gets my goat when people complain when they have been speeding that the police should be doing more useful things. If the complainers had not been breaking the law, the police would have more time to do other things.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Re: It\'s not just them (non boaty - just a gripe)

I do remember someone at a Students Union concert (many, many years ago), stating that 5% of accidents were caused by drunk drivers. As he pointed out that made them much safer than sober drivers, as 95% accidents involved sober drivers....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

Re: Welsh police

Going by the report - the majority of accidents were caused by pedestrians not looking where they were going. I'll agree that some one speeding can cause a higher degree of casualty or fatality. Speeding in itself though did not cause the accident which is what the government and police lead us to belief.

So when will the police and government acknowledge this and place speed cameras in the proper locations, schools, busy pedestrian areas etc... rather than on motorways... then the motorist won't feel as they are being picked on. That is what annoys me the most!

I'll get off my horse now as this thread could go on and on and on... /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>How much to fill'er up!

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Re: Welsh police

So you have never ever not once broken the speed limit.



<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/Honda_00.html>Honda Formula 4-Stroke racing</A>

 

[Birdseye]

of course it is correct to say that speed kills, in the sense that the faster you are going when you hit someone, the more likely they are to die. so you could reduce accidents by reducing speed. a universal 10 mph limit would undoubtedly cut road deaths, so why dont we have one?

the answer is that such a speed limit would be unacceptable to the population as a whole. and its the population that are making the trade off between speed of transport and road safety, and this is why the speed limits used to be defined in terms of the speed at which 85% (i believe) of the traffic used to drive.

what is happening now is that a combination of local government officials and the police are enforcing limits tighter that the general public believe reasonable. instead of a speeding ticket being the reward for what most people would have regarded as excessive speed, or bad observation, every driver is at risk in a revenue gathering operation. someone travelling on an open urban 30mph road at 35 mph at 3 in the morning will no longer be ignored but will be punished.

and this happens at a time when, right or wrong, old people are fraid to go out of their houses, and not many middle aged would brave our city centres on a Saturday night. the clear up rate for burglaries in this area is 5%, and many cases dont even get a police visit.

i suspect that ,most people would take the view that public money and police manpower is being squandered on the wrong target.

so do we ultimately control the police and their objectives - or do they control us?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Romeo]

Re: Welsh police

I have 3 points for doing 60 in a 50. But I don't grumble about it. Its a fair cop guv.

<hr width=100% size=1>