Top Gear vote page

grannyhalfstep said the following on 28/09/2006 21:52:

Quoted message said:

Panicky Top Gear fans and general petrolheads are piling onto this page
to 'vote' for the programme.
http://www.petrolprices.com/blog/fans-fear-as-top-gear-may-be-axed-54.html&c=added#comment

"statistically, our roads are actually becoming safer in terms of
accidents,"

What? With around 3500 people a year still being killed? 9-10 a day,
give or take. If 9-10 people a day were killed on trains or planes,
there would be uproar!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Never watch it, even though I ride a motorcycle and drive a car. Can't
see what all the hype is about, a bit like all the hype about Steve
Irwin really, I got a chain letter from my cousin in Australia the
other day, no family news just a chain letter about some geezer who
baited crocadiles, but definately off topic re walking.

Phil.

grannyhalfstep said:

Panicky Top Gear fans and general petrolheads are piling onto this page
to 'vote' for the programme.
http://www.petrolprices.com/blog/fans-fear-as-top-gear-may-be-axed-54.html&c=added#comment

It's meaningless, but still, have a vote. Hopefully some of us might
help redress the balance. If you've never seen the programme,
amuse/depress yourself by reading some of the comments supporting the
programme. If you don't think there's anything wrong with the
programme, you can even check the Sun website, and read about '315mph
jet car smash victim, TV star Richard Hammond' stuff like this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006440152,,00.html

Notes: All this talk of 300mph is just more glorification of speed. The
Vampire car uses parachutes, which had been deployed when the crash
happened.

Hammond's recovery isn't particularly miraculous, it's a feature of his
particular brain injury (most likely caused by decelerative g-force
effects). Victims often either pull through quite quickly or are in
'switch off life-support' situations.

TG gets stonking ratings, so it is unlikely to be canned. The Beeb
might just make it a leetle more sensible, however.

O.

Paul Boyd said:

grannyhalfstep said the following on 28/09/2006 21:52:

Quoted message said:

Panicky Top Gear fans and general petrolheads are piling onto this page
to 'vote' for the programme.
http://www.petrolprices.com/blog/fans-fear-as-top-gear-may-be-axed-54.html&c=added#comment

"statistically, our roads are actually becoming safer in terms of
accidents,"

What?

Based on government statistics, our roads *are* becoming safer. That's
not to say that they couldn't be safer.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Based on government statistics, our roads *are* becoming safer. That's
not to say that they couldn't be safer.

--
Matt B

We need Angus as Minister of Transport!

Paul Boyd said:

grannyhalfstep said the following on 28/09/2006 21:52:

Quoted message said:

Panicky Top Gear fans and general petrolheads are piling onto this page
to 'vote' for the programme.
http://www.petrolprices.com/blog/fans-fear-as-top-gear-may-be-axed-54.html&c=added#comment

"statistically, our roads are actually becoming safer in terms of
accidents,"

What? With around 3500 people a year still being killed? 9-10 a day,
give or take. If 9-10 people a day were killed on trains or planes,
there would be uproar!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

If Pilots flew their aircraft like most people drive their cars - there
would also be an uproar.

Clive

<<Based on government statistics, our roads *are* becoming safer. That's
not to say that they couldn't be safer.>>

They would argue that this is partly because the number of speed related
accidents have been reduced. It could also be a reduction on the number of
stupid morons crossing the road with complete disregard to the traffic on
the road and their personal safety. If so, that would be a real
improvement. There's nothing inherently unsafe in going slightly over the
speed limit on a good road with good weather and good visibility. (If
you're a police officer you can make a case for going double the speed limit
and get away with it).

They try to put the blame on speed. It takes two to tango. If pedestrians
respected the law and the danger of crossing the road accident statistics
would be decreased. Consider this! In all those accidents where speed is
cited as the cause, if the vehicle was going slightly faster they would have
gone passed the point of impact and the pedestrian would have had a clear
crossing!

Regards.

Bill

In message <[email hidden]>, at 09:18:54 on Fri, 29
Sep 2006, Bill Ridgeway <[email hidden]> remarked:

Quoted message said:

In all those accidents where speed is cited as the cause, if the
vehicle was going slightly faster they would have gone passed the point
of impact and the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!

But the car behind them, which is likely to be going at the same speed,
would merely take their place.

Speed is an issue in 15% of accidents, it's claimed. How many percent of
*those* are accidents where a pedestrian is also involved?
--
Roland Perry

Bill Ridgeway said:

They try to put the blame on speed. It takes two to tango. If
pedestrians respected the law and the danger of crossing the road
accident statistics would be decreased.

Which law would that be, then?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.

Bill Ridgeway said:

Consider this! In all those
accidents where speed is cited as the cause, if the vehicle was going
slightly faster they would have gone passed the point of impact and
the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!

Are you really this stupid?

Is anyone?

Roland Perry said:

In message <[email hidden]>, at 09:18:54 on Fri, 29
Sep 2006, Bill Ridgeway <[email hidden]> remarked:

Quoted message said:

In all those accidents where speed is cited as the cause, if the
vehicle was going slightly faster they would have gone passed the
point of impact and the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!

But the car behind them, which is likely to be going at the same speed,
would merely take their place.

Speed is an issue in 15% of accidents, it's claimed.

But only 5% have "exceeding the speed limit" as one of the contributory
factors[1] - and this is the *only* offence that speed cameras address.

"Going too fast for conditions" is recorded as one of the contributory
factors in 12% of accidents[1].

Ironically that latter manifestation of unsafe driving is, in effect,
actually encouraged and legitimised by concentrating on the enforcement
of blanket and arbitrary speed limits to control road casualties. How
often do you hear of anyone being convicted for driving at an unsafe
speed within the actual speed limit (compared to breaking the speed
limit whether dangerously or not)?

Quoted message said:

How many percent of

Quoted message said:

*those* are accidents where a pedestrian is also involved?

Apparently, in accidents involving a single vehicle and a pedestrian
"exceeding the speed limit" is a factor in 6% of them and "going too
fast for conditions" in another 6%. "Pedestrian failed to look
properly" is a factor in 53% of pedestrian accidents, and the pedestrian
being "careless, reckless or in a hurry" is a factor in 24% of them[1].

[1]
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_612594.pdf

--
Matt B

In message <[email hidden]>, at 10:20:10 on Fri, 29 Sep
2006, Matt B <[email hidden]> remarked:

Quoted message said:

Roland Perry said:

In message <[email hidden]>, at 09:18:54 on Fri, 29
Sep 2006, Bill Ridgeway <[email hidden]> remarked:

Quoted message said:

In all those accidents where speed is cited as the cause, if the
vehicle was going slightly faster they would have gone passed the
point of impact and the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!

But the car behind them, which is likely to be going at the same
speed, would merely take their place.
Speed is an issue in 15% of accidents, it's claimed.

But only 5% have "exceeding the speed limit" as one of the contributory
factors[1] - and this is the *only* offence that speed cameras address.

"Going too fast for conditions" is recorded as one of the contributory
factors in 12% of accidents[1].

I think you are well on the way to proving my point that speeders
hitting pedestrians is not very high on the list.

Quoted message said:

Ironically that latter manifestation of unsafe driving is, in effect,
actually encouraged and legitimised by concentrating on the enforcement
of blanket and arbitrary speed limits to control road casualties. How
often do you hear of anyone being convicted for driving at an unsafe
speed within the actual speed limit (compared to breaking the speed
limit whether dangerously or not)?

Quoted message said:

How many percent of

Quoted message said:

*those* are accidents where a pedestrian is also involved?

Apparently, in accidents involving a single vehicle and a pedestrian
"exceeding the speed limit" is a factor in 6% of them and "going too
fast for conditions" in another 6%.

So broadly similar to the "all accidents" figures.

Quoted message said:

"Pedestrian failed to look properly" is a factor in 53% of pedestrian
accidents, and the pedestrian being "careless, reckless or in a hurry"
is a factor in 24% of them[1].

[1]
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloada
ble/dft_transstats_612594.pdf

--
Roland Perry

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roland Perry <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Speed is an issue in 15% of accidents, it's claimed. How many percent of
*those* are accidents where a pedestrian is also involved?

The statistics don't appear to cover that aspect.

"Exceeding the speed limit or going to fast for the conditions was
reported as a contributary factor in 15% of all accidents. However the
factor became more significant with the severity of the accident; it was
reported as contributory factor in 26% of fatal accidents and these
accidents accounted for 28% of all fatalities (793 deaths)."

This must have come as something of a shock to the anti-car lobbies who
routinely blame speeding for all RTAs but they have put the best gloss
they can on the figures by claiming all the 28% for speeding. However
digging a little further into the figures reveals that the statistics
actually discriminate between exceeding the speed limit and going too
fast for the conditions and, surprise, surprise, speeding is the lower
figure, 12% as compared with 17%.

--
Roger Chapman

SNIP <<Which law would that be, then?>>

Have a look at the Highway Code. It's all in there.

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Ridgeway said:

They try to put the blame on speed. It takes two to tango. If
pedestrians respected the law and the danger of crossing the road
accident statistics would be decreased.

Which law would that be, then?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.

Bill Ridgeway said:

SNIP <<Which law would that be, then?>>

Have a look at the Highway Code. It's all in there.

Well - help us out, you presumably know which law you were referring
to? It's one line of typing to tell us.

Quoted message said:

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Ridgeway said:

They try to put the blame on speed. It takes two to tango. If
pedestrians respected the law and the danger of crossing the road
accident statistics would be decreased.

Which law would that be, then?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill Ridgeway" <[email hidden]> writes:
|> SNIP <<Which law would that be, then?>>
|>
|> Have a look at the Highway Code. It's all in there.

Why don't you do so? You would discover that you are wrong.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick Maclaren
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Bill Ridgeway" <[email hidden]> writes:
|> SNIP <<Which law would that be, then?>>
|>
|> Have a look at the Highway Code. It's all in there.

Why don't you do so? You would discover that you are wrong.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Bring back the Green Cross Code :-)

The overwhelming number of reduced speed restriction that have been
imposed on the motorist on serve to increase the amount of tailgating
that goes on - the main cause of road rages and potential accidents.

Speed restrictions in the form of speed cameras etc and the court cases
that ensue, don't appear to place any duty of responsibility on the
pedestrians.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Here is a selection of Highway Code Rules for pedestrians. You will
understand why I haven't quoted them all verbatim.
Rule 7a - Find a safe place to cross
Rule 7c - Look all around for traffic and listen
Rule 7d - If traffic is coming, let it pass
Rule 7e - When it is safe, go straight across the road - do not run
Rule 8 - At a junction
Rule 14 - Parked vehicles
Rule 17 - At night
Rule 18 - At all crossings
Rules 19 & 20 - Zebra crossings
Rule 21- At traffic lights
Rule 22 through 24 - Pelican crossings
Rule 25 Puffin and toucan crossings
Rule 26 - 'Staggered' pelican or puffin crossings

Regards.

Bill
"Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Ridgeway said:

SNIP <<Which law would that be, then?>>

Have a look at the Highway Code. It's all in there.

Well - help us out, you presumably know which law you were referring
to? It's one line of typing to tell us.

Quoted message said:

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway
"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Ridgeway wrote:

> They try to put the blame on speed. It takes two to tango. If
> pedestrians respected the law and the danger of crossing the road
> accident statistics would be decreased.

Which law would that be, then?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.

quote='Simon Bennett'Bill Ridgeway said:

Consider this! In all those
accidents where speed is cited as the cause, if the vehicle was going
slightly faster they would have gone passed the point of impact and
the pedestrian would have had a clear crossing!

Are you really this stupid?

Is anyone?[/QUOTE]..

I might be......

If the speed of motor vehicles were reduced to, let's say 0 mph, how many accidents would there be?

My calculations suggest that speed is a factor in *approximately* 100% of RTAs.

(approximations due to idiots opening their car doors onto pedestrians, cars falling off jacks etc.)

😄

Wheelist

In message <[email hidden]>, at 12:02:07 on Fri, 29
Sep 2006, Bill Ridgeway <[email hidden]> remarked:

Quoted message said:

Here is a selection of Highway Code Rules for pedestrians. You will
understand why I haven't quoted them all verbatim.
Rule 7a - Find a safe place to cross
Rule 7c - Look all around for traffic and listen
Rule 7d - If traffic is coming, let it pass
Rule 7e - When it is safe, go straight across the road - do not run
Rule 8 - At a junction
Rule 14 - Parked vehicles
Rule 17 - At night
Rule 18 - At all crossings
Rules 19 & 20 - Zebra crossings
Rule 21- At traffic lights
Rule 22 through 24 - Pelican crossings
Rule 25 Puffin and toucan crossings
Rule 26 - 'Staggered' pelican or puffin crossings

Sadly, the only one that's law is part of 18: "You MUST NOT loiter on
zebra, pelican or puffin crossings."

and two you omitted:

6: Motorways. You MUST NOT walk on motorways or slip roads except in an
emergency
16: Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get on to or hold on to a moving
vehicle.
--
Roland Perry