Torygraph argues that driving crime is not real crime...

David Hansen wrote in message

or lining up to take finger-prints from a grandmother
with a dodgy number-plate.

From what I have heard this was an example of the stupidity which
the police are sometimes prone to.

Or then again perhaps that 'grandmother' was in her mid 30's and had
quite deliberately used the wrong coloured screw/ screws in her number
plate to either 1) change the numbers and letters into a word she
liked the look of, or 2) to obscure the real number so she could evade
being caught when indulging in a bit of 'Sod you and sod the law, I do
what I want' speeding. (Such tactics are certainly recommended by
Paul 'blame it on a dead person if you are caught speeding' Smith). It
sounds like a fair nick to me.

Regards,

Howard.

in message , Eiron ')
wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote:

Mr Darling announced, a ouple of months ago, an average 40% drop in
casualties at speed camera sites.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
You gullible folk can cling to your fallacies.

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. You're putting the
burden of proof on the wrong foot. What you're claiming is that you
can't prove that that speeding is dangerous, therefore people should be
allowed to speed. But on the precautionary principal, that's the wrong
way to look at it. There is substantial evidence that speeding is
dangerous, and you can't prove it's safe. Therefore, *until* you prove
it's safe to speed, you should *not* be allowed to speed.

OK, you'll reply, well then on the precautionary principal cyclists
should have to wear helmets. Not so. On the balance of the available
evidence, speeding is more dangerous than not speeding. On the balance
of the available evidence, helmet wearing is exactly as dangerous as
not helmet wearing.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.

Gawnsoft wrote:

70% of 'accidents' would not have occured, had the vehicle speed been
lower.

That's not the same as "speeding motorists" is it though.

The claim was "speeding motorists" - if it had been "motorists" then I
wouldn't have queried it.

I'm still waiting for the link to the study that proves excessive speed (and
I mean that in the context of the law, not in the context of 0mph = safe)
being the cause of so many deaths.

Colin McKenzie wrote:

Mr Darling announced, a ouple of months ago, an average 40% drop in
casualties at speed camera sites.

Casualties does not equal deaths.

Annual road deaths are 3500, 40% of
that is 1400, so about 1400 deaths a year could be saved by universal
observance of speed limits. 1200 is an under-estimate!

But they _haven't_ dropped by that much.

dwb wrote:
What about smoking then - Shall we have a little jihad about that?

Yes.

Next!

d.

zzapper wrote:
Car drivers get to the end of their journey less tired and stressed.

Absolutely - but what I find /really/ bemusing about speeding is that as
a rule it doesn't actually get you where you're going any quicker.

d.

In article ,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:41:35 +0100, "dwb"
wrote in message :

What about smoking then - Shall we have a little jihad about that?

Why the foreign word in that? Is this a nasty stereotype?

Speaking as an asthmatic allergic to tobacco smoke, yes please. If

Hmmm, I've spent a lifetime avoiding the filthy buggers, and in my
younger days found them a serious problems (I still never go to the
cinema, after one or two experiences of being enclosed with smokers
in my teens).

But now we no longer have them on public transport, and I rarely find
it a problem to avoid. And other places infested with them: well, it's
not really hard to avoid smoky pubs, shopping centres, etc. The worst
place is often the streets, and there the problem of traffic fumes is
vastly greater. Indeed, I should say traffic fumes have been a worse
health problem than secondary tobacco smoke for at least 20 years.
So too AIUI would medical opinion: I have seen studies claiming a six-
figure number of annual deaths in the UK due to traffic-pollution-induced
illnesses.

On Friday night for the first time in ages I had to ask a restaurant
to re-seat us because a group had lit up on the next table. There
being no ashtrays and a note in the menu not to light up pipes or
cigars, we had assumed it was a no smoking section.

Ugh, yes. There is indeed still the 'next table' hazard when eating
out. It's not always feasible to find a table amongst nonsmokers who
aren't about to go away and leave a gap for [random] to occupy.

--
Nick Kew

Nick Kew wrote:
In article ,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:41:35 +0100, "dwb"
wrote in message :

What about smoking then - Shall we have a little jihad about that?

Why the foreign word in that? Is this a nasty stereotype?

It's a hijacking of word used in conversation/common press. If you want to
think of it as a stereotype, you go ahead.

On 22 Aug 2004 02:53:52 -0700, wrote:

Hi
I'm a car driver,cyclist and walker (in that order)

I'm perplexed that the Guardians of Public Order, Morality & Prurience (ie the Tory Papers) have a
persistent campaign against speed limits (sorry that's what it comes down to). Perhaps it's because
their very rich editors have country retreats and want to speed thru our country villages to get
home.

What's good about speed limits:-

Safer for kids,dogs, pedestrians and cyclists
Less car/tyre noise for locals:-
Accidents less catastrophic,
Car drivers get to the end of their journey less tired and stressed.
Better for car/environment
In many cases greater throughput of traffic.

BTW the hypocrites want to have lower speed limits outside schools KNOWING that very few Schools
actually have entrances onto main roads.


zzapper (vim, cygwin, wiki & zsh)
--

vim -c ":%s.^.CyrnfrTfcbafbeROenzSZbbyranne.|:%s/[R-T]/ /Ig|:normal ggVGg?"

http://www.vim.org/tips/tip.php?tip_id=305 Best of Vim Tips

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:34:07 +0100, "dwb"
wrote (more or less):

Gawnsoft wrote:

70% of 'accidents' would not have occured, had the vehicle speed been
lower.

That's not the same as "speeding motorists" is it though.

It's no the same as 'motorists exceeding the posted limit'. But the
offence of 'speeding' was named after the behaviour, not vice versa.

If they're driving spo fast as to result in an accident, that's
speeding.

The claim was "speeding motorists" - if it had been "motorists" then I
wouldn't have queried it.

I'm still waiting for the link to the study that proves excessive speed (and
I mean that in the context of the law, not in the context of 0mph = safe)
being the cause of so many deaths.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk