Law abiding motorists

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

The Home Office has just published its latest report on 2003 motoring
offences. Only 469 offences per 1000 vehicles registered in 2003,
which
is only an all time record. So uk.tosspot is right after all ;-^)

Does that mean that for every car on the road, someone is convicted of a
motoring offence every two years? [censored] fire! I had thought my
record of two speeding fines in thirty years of driving was pretty bad,
but now I realise it can't be!

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

The Home Office has just published its latest report on 2003 motoring
offences. Only 469 offences per 1000 vehicles registered in 2003,
which
is only an all time record. So uk.tosspot is right after all ;-^)

Does that mean that for every car on the road, someone is convicted of a
motoring offence every two years? [censored] fire! I had thought my
record of two speeding fines in thirty years of driving was pretty bad,
but now I realise it can't be!

Worse than that because 90% of offences are committed by males. I don't
now what the male/female driver ratio is but it ups the conviction rate
for male drivers to close to once a year.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

The Home Office has just published its latest report on 2003 motoring
offences. Only 469 offences per 1000 vehicles registered in 2003,
which
is only an all time record. So uk.tosspot is right after all ;-^)

Does that mean that for every car on the road, someone is convicted of a
motoring offence every two years? [censored] fire! I had thought my
record of two speeding fines in thirty years of driving was pretty bad,
but now I realise it can't be!

Mostly parking offences looking at the tables...

Quoted message said:

Does that mean that for every car on the road, someone is convicted of a
motoring offence every two years? [censored] fire! I had thought my
record of two speeding fines in thirty years of driving was pretty bad,
but now I realise it can't be!

The majority of the 'motoring offenses' were when the cars were stationary
e.g parking and obstruction offenses. Here's the categories of offenses

*Causing death or bodily harm
*Dangerous driving
*Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs
*Careless driving
*Accident offences
*Unauthorised taking or theft of a motor vehicle
*Licence, insurance & record keeping offences
*Vehicle test offences
*Vehicle or part in dangerous or defective condition
*Speed limit offences
*Neglect of traffic signs & directions & pedestrian rights
*Obstruction, waiting & parking offences
*Lighting & noise offences
*Load Offences
*Offences peculiar to motor cycles
*Miscellaneous

It would be interesting to know how a driver committing multiple offences
e.g.
An uninsured drunk driver in a stolen vehicle who gets pulled for speeding
after
being observed passing through a set of red lights contributes to the
statistics. Is it
counted as one offence or five?

Persistant TWOC offenders will also make a significant contribution if each
offence
is counted seperately.

469 offences per 1000 vehicles does not tell the full story though it does
imply
to the statistically naive and/or the uncurious, that the roads are v.unsafe
places to be.

Cycling statistics suggest otherwise...8 accidents per 100 million
kilometres of
travelling...now I admit that this can be interpreted in many ways.......

I have also seen suggestions that the risks of an accident whilst cycling on
the
road are outweight by the health benefits of cycling.

Risk taking and hazard perception are very subjective for a lot of folk.
Being the
optimist, I've opted for immortality with a smidging of vulnerability rather
than
vice versa.

vernon said:

469 offences per 1000 vehicles does not tell the full story though it does
imply
to the statistically naive and/or the uncurious, that the roads are v.unsafe
places to be.

No it doesn't. It just means that motorists break the law very
frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
about the danger that poses.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

though it does imply to the statistically naive and/or the uncurious,
that the roads are v.unsafe places to be.

No it doesn't. It just means that motorists break the law very
frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
about the danger that poses.

Yebbut you're not statistically naive.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

though it does imply to the statistically naive and/or the uncurious,
that the roads are v.unsafe places to be.

No it doesn't. It just means that motorists break the law very
frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
about the danger that poses.

Yebbut you're not statistically naive.

Ah, a self fulfilling category. I would consider the statistically
naive would mostly not take that implication; you define the
statistically naive as those that do, thus ensuring the validity of the
original statement.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Quoted message said:

It just means that motorists break the law very
frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
about the danger that poses.

No it doesn't. It just means that a lot of offenses are committed. It could
be one driver committing lots of offenses at one unlikely extreme or a lot
of drivers committing one offence each at the other unlikely extreme. Those
of a delicate, nervy or car hating disposition are more likely to interpret
the figures as a measure of hazard

Dipping into the figures reveals that the bulk of the offences were not
moving traffic offences.

Statistics can hide a multitude of sins as can their interpretation :-)

vernon said:

Quoted message said:

It just means that motorists break the law very
frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
about the danger that poses.

No it doesn't. It just means that a lot of offenses are committed.

Which is the same as what I said

Quoted message said:

It could
be one driver committing lots of offenses at one unlikely extreme or a lot
of drivers committing one offence each at the other unlikely extreme.

Both of which are covered by the phrase "motorists break the law very
frequently"

Quoted message said:

Those
of a delicate, nervy or car hating disposition are more likely to interpret
the figures as a measure of hazard

You seem to be the nervy one jumping to conclusions that are not warranted

Quoted message said:

Dipping into the figures reveals that the bulk of the offences were not
moving traffic offences.

They were still offences.

Quoted message said:

Statistics can hide a multitude of sins as can their interpretation :-)

And statistics can be blamed as a multitude of excuses.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Home Office has just published its latest report on 2003 motoring
offences. Only 469 offences per 1000 vehicles registered in 2003, which
is only an all time record. So uk.tosspot is right after all ;-^)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0605.pdf

Which reminds me of what appeared in this evening's local rag...

<http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED17%20Sep%202005%2013%3A18%3A28%3A337>

"Stop these speeding motorists"

Includes

"Families living on one of the most dangerous roads in Norwich are today
renewing calls to stop speeding drivers after the sixth accident there this
year."

and

""Tony Carter, 64, a building surveyor who lives on the road, told how in
the latest accident a BMW car had spun out of control and smashed into posts
along the grass verge close to his home.

He said: "A BMW went out of control crashing into and ripping up posts on a
grass verge."

"The car was badly damaged and the driver was shaken but okay. The police
came out and carried out investigations.

"It looks as if it went out of control. You don't do that by normal
driving - it normally is that it's been on that corner going down there hell
for leather.""

and

"In June the Evening News reported how two people were taken to hospital
after an accident on the road near to the home of David Thompson, chairman
of Old Catton Parish Council, and a Broadland district councillor.

It was the third accident in the same spot and the second accident in just
four weeks."

Cheers, helen s

in message <[email hidden]>, "wafflycat"

waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk ('') said:

""Tony Carter, 64, a building surveyor who lives on the road, told how
in the latest accident a BMW car had spun out of control and smashed
into posts along the grass verge close to his home.

A BMW was it? How very surprising.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, "wafflycat"

waffles*$*A**T*v21net$**D*O*T*co*D$*O*T*uk ('') said:

""Tony Carter, 64, a building surveyor who lives on the road, told how
in the latest accident a BMW car had spun out of control and smashed
into posts along the grass verge close to his home.

A BMW was it? How very surprising.

Could have knocked me down with a feather I was so surprised ;-)

Cheers, helen s

In message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

> though it does imply to the statistically naive and/or the uncurious,
> that the roads are v.unsafe places to be.
No it doesn't. It just means that motorists break the law very
frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
about the danger that poses.

Yebbut you're not statistically naive.

Ah, a self fulfilling category. I would consider the statistically
naive would mostly not take that implication; you define the
statistically naive as those that do, thus ensuring the validity of the
original statement.

So - does that mean he's right, even though you said he isn't?

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

congokid said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Mark Thompson said:

>> though it does imply to the statistically naive and/or the uncurious,
>> that the roads are v.unsafe places to be.
> No it doesn't. It just means that motorists break the law very
> frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
> about the danger that poses.
Yebbut you're not statistically naive.

Ah, a self fulfilling category. I would consider the statistically
naive would mostly not take that implication; you define the
statistically naive as those that do, thus ensuring the validity of
the original statement.

So - does that mean he's right, even though you said he isn't?

Only if you define right as what he is ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"vernon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It just means that motorists break the law very
frequently. Unless you go further into the statistics it says nothing
about the danger that poses.

No it doesn't. It just means that a lot of offenses are committed. It
could
be one driver committing lots of offenses at one unlikely extreme

Absolutely. When a motorist is stopped for (say) no tax, other offences are
often discovered.

Wheras cyclists are hardly ever stopped for committing offences (riding
through red lights, ped crossing offences, etc, etc.). And if they ever
are, the bike is hardly ever checked over by Plod for roadworthiness....

"wafflycat" <waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Home Office has just published its latest report on 2003 motoring
offences. Only 469 offences per 1000 vehicles registered in 2003, which
is only an all time record. So uk.tosspot is right after all ;-^)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0605.pdf

Which reminds me of what appeared in this evening's local rag...

<http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED17%20Sep%202005%2013%3A18%3A28%3A337>

"Stop these speeding motorists"

Includes

"Families living on one of the most dangerous roads in Norwich are today
renewing calls to stop speeding drivers after the sixth accident there
this year."

and

""Tony Carter, 64, a building surveyor who lives on the road, told how in
the latest accident a BMW car had spun out of control and smashed into
posts along the grass verge close to his home.

He said: "A BMW went out of control crashing into and ripping up posts on
a grass verge."

"The car was badly damaged and the driver was shaken but okay. The police
came out and carried out investigations.

"It looks as if it went out of control. You don't do that by normal
driving - it normally is that it's been on that corner going down there
hell for leather.""

and

"In June the Evening News reported how two people were taken to hospital
after an accident on the road near to the home of David Thompson, chairman
of Old Catton Parish Council, and a Broadland district councillor.

It was the third accident in the same spot and the second accident in just
four weeks."

Cheers, helen s

Queen Street in Portsmuff has had a 20mph restriction slapped on it by the
local council....the big signs say "3 fatalities in 5 years". At least one
of these fatalities was due to a cyclist riding off a pavement, (where he
shouldn't have been in the first place), without warning, onto a pelican
crossing (green light for traffic), straight under a bus. (If he had not
been wearing headphones he might have heard it.....)

"ian henden" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Queen Street in Portsmuff has had a 20mph restriction slapped on it by the
local council....the big signs say "3 fatalities in 5 years".

Portsmuff eh? I was down there a couple of weeks ago to visit HMS Victory,
the road leading to that area (don't know the name) also has a 20 limit.
Apparently special dispensation is given to taxis and buses though in some
secret instructions not available to the general public (like most towns and
cities I guess).

BTW, Victory....awesome!
--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/P

Peter B said:

"ian henden" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Queen Street in Portsmuff has had a 20mph restriction slapped on it by the
local council....the big signs say "3 fatalities in 5 years".

Portsmuff eh? I was down there a couple of weeks ago to visit HMS Victory,
the road leading to that area (don't know the name) also has a 20 limit.
Apparently special dispensation is given to taxis and buses though in some
secret instructions not available to the general public (like most towns and
cities I guess).

I think the relevant articles on that road are:
http://snipurl.com/fiw8
http://snipurl.com/fiw9

Three fatalities in one year, one on a zebra crossing.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Surely the number of offences per vehicle registered largely reflects
how much enforcement is carried out. The actual number of offences
committed, as opposed to recorded, must be orders of magnitude greater
than this.

After years of campaigning by both extremist and mainstream motoring
groups trying to demonise the Police for motoring law enforcement, is
it any surprise that the Police are enforcing less.

As for cycling offences, I'm sure we would all support more enforcement
here....Of course as long as any enforcement zones were highlighted by
fluorescent yellow boxes, or mobile checks easily visible from hundreds
of meters away and lists published of these areas on websites and local
papers for several weeks before.......and of course couriers and
rickshaws would need exemption from law enforcement just like taxis and
buses appear to have...it would only be fair now.........

Paul