We have written before about the excellent Association of British Drivers. Here are a few choice titbits culled from the recent edition of their members' newsletter "On the road" ...
The infamous TRL 421 report (Transport Research Laboratory: "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents") contains this intriguing statement:
On rural roads, speed management measures that target specific problems or specific roads are more likely to be justifiable in terms of accident reduction than 'blanket' speed management measures. In particular, a reduction in the national speed limit on rural single-carriageway A and B class roads to 50mph, is likely to be effective in reducing accidents only on a modest proportion of roads. Targeting 'problem' roads would be a more effective strategy.
Bearing this in mind, how can the government justify a proposed blanket reduction in the national speed limit to 50mph?
The Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership has invested in new CCTV cars to catch drivers using mobile phones or otherwise distracted at the wheel. The Smart cars feature a 12ft mast with a camera attached; they park at junctions to monitor traffic. Amazingly, after just a few weeks of use, Mike Downes of the CRP claimed the scheme "was successfully driving the number of accidents down". Intriguing. What's even more intriguing is that when pressed by the local media, figures on the numbers of people caught using this technology were unavailable – although they somehow managed to come up with a set of figures proving the scheme to be a success. Odd that.
That's good. They want to catch people out being distracted at the wheel, by placing at busy road junctions something that's almost guaranteed to distract drivers as they wonder what the hell it is. Yep, that'll work.
Accidents have risen by a quarter and casualties have almost doubled since a Gatso was installed on the M11 at its junction with the North Circular A406 near Woodford, Essex. It's estimated to catch up to 500 drivers a day, generating nearly £1m a year in fines. The camera, jointly run by Essex Council, the police and the Highways Agency, is on the southbound M11 where the road narrows from three lanes to two and the speed limit drops from 70mph to 50mph. Figures released under Freedom of Information laws show that in the five years before the camera was put up, there were 13 accidents and 14 casualties. In the following five years, the number of accidents rose to 16 and casualties to 24.
Isn't this the same camera that someone vandalised a couple of years ago by hitching it up to a lorry and letting in the clutch? I do hope so.
The ABD has always taken a robust attitude to the Global Warming fraud, because of course it's often motorists who get the blame for this imaginary problem ...
Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions. In an article published recently, Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim". Pope says there's little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so, as reports suggest. "The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice increasing again over the next few years" she says.
But we could have told her this all along. Still, we aren't scientists, are we, so what we know can't possibly be real.
An ABD member sent in this exchange, which he'd spotted spotted on an internet newsgroup ...
Yesterday I drove down a main road near Wrotham in Kent, and I noticed on each side of the two-way road, facing oncoming traffic, was a camera unit of some kind on a tripod, with a cable descending to a box beneath. I could see no-one with them and no indication what they were. Parked a few yards back in a layby was a chap in plain clothes, sitting in the back of an unmarked Citreon. I turned round my car, went back and also parked in the layby. I got out my video camera (kept for such occasions) and walked towards his car.
I noticed a yellow reflective jacket on the front seat and wisely concluded that the cameras were something to do with him - so I then walked around his vehicle filming him, his vehicle and the cameras. I then went back to my car. As I started the engine, he quickly walked up to me, so I wound down the window and the exchange started:
Him: What do you think you're doing?
Me: Filming. What were you doing?
Him: Filming.
Me: Well we're doing the same thing aren't we?
Him: Yes but I don't WANT to be filmed.
Me: NOR do I
Him: But that's my job!
Me: That's my job too!
Him: Who are you then?
Me: Who are you?
Him: I want to know who YOU are.
Me: I want to know who YOU are.
Him: I'm here for the council
Me: I'm here for the public
Him: You can't take film for the public
Me: Why
Him: Because you have to work for someone
Me: I do
Him: Who?
Me: The public
Him: What do you mean the public?
Me: I work for a group of people who don't like being filmed, and they pay me to take film of anyone who starts filming them. In fact I go round looking for people like you.
Him: What do you do with the film?
Me: What do YOU do with the film?
Him: I give it to the council. What do you do with your film?
Me: I give it to the public
Him: Well I don't want to be on your film, so I'm going to ask you to destroy it straight away.
Me: Well I don't want to be on your film either, so I want you to destroy yours straight away.
Him: I can't.
Me: Neither can I
Him: Well just you make sure you don't use any of that film of me.
Me: Ok And just you make sure you don't use any of that film of me.
Him: Ok.
Me: I still don't understand what the purpose of YOUR film is, what do they use it for?
Him: I don't know. They don't tell us what it's for, we just have to go out and do it!
Me: God. How long have you been doing this?
Him: On and off for three weeks.
Me: Three weeks! And you don't know what it's for?
Him: No. How long have you been doing it then?
Me: About six years
Him: Oh I couldn't stand it that long.
Me: No I'm thinking of giving it up soon.
Him: Yeah well, I better go now. Nice talking.
Me: Yeah great, mind how you go.
He then waved me goodbye as I drove off. What he didn't know was I was also recording the conversation too! But hey, I made him a promise.
"Our opponents would be ridiculed if they advocated motorist-grade restrictive measures elsewhere. Would they advocate that pedestrians are specifically banned from using mobile phones when they cross a road, because they should be concentrating 100%?
Sadly, some children die as they trespass on railway tracks. I don't see pressure groups demanding that all trains be slowed down to 2mph on the grounds that 'if it saved just one life it would be worth it'."
But it's not all doom and gloom - there are some reports we can draw satisfaction from ...
The driver of a scamera van in Phoenix, Arizona was shot and killed recently. Doug Georgianni had parked his van, marked as a Department of Public Safety (DPS) vehicle when a Chevy Suburban pulled alongside and fired at least five shots, killing Georgianni.
There's been a big fall in the number of speeding penalties, after police and local authorities lost the right to keep the proceeds. The drop came in the same year that road deaths fell to their lowest level since records began, undermining claims that an increase in cameras improves road safety. In 2007, 1.26m fixed penalties were issued, down 370,000, or 23%, on the previous year. Over the same period, road deaths fell below 3000 for the first time, down 226 to 2946.
Until 1 April 2007, camera partnerships operated by police and local authorities were allowed to keep a proportion of fines to pay for more cameras. Since then, they have received a fixed amount for all aspects of road safety. The drop in fines suggests police chiefs have put fewer resources into speed enforcement now they can't recover the costs of installing and operating cameras. Many camera housings are being left empty and some forces have reduced their use of camera vans.
Thames Valley Police recorded the steepest fall in camera fines, down from 137,000 in 2006 to 54,000 in 2007. The Metropolitan Police and the Bedfordshire, Essex and Wiltshire forces also recorded substantial falls. The number of drivers caught using handheld mobile phones also fell in 2007, down 27% to 122,000.
Swindon's council has voted to press ahead with plans to pull out of the town's safety camera partnership and restructure road safety. The cameras started disappearing in June to be replaced by vehicle-activated signs. The focus will be on education, with road safety lessons given to children, said a council spokesman.
Well, that's a stunner - a local authority exercising common-sense? It'll never catch on.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS