Thank you Prince Philip!

124678

Comments

  • Zacchaeus wrote: »
    Just interested to know if seat beltless driving on private land is still an offence?
    No it isn't - the Police spoke to Philip because he was doing it on a public road. Mind you, you're pretty stupid if you go anywhere above 1 MPH without a seatbelt

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I remember a batch of letters to the SMH a couple of years ago from people caught by speed cameras. The general tenor was that the use of concealed or unannounced cameras was unfair. One writer complained of a camera being placed on his usual journey to work through a tunnel known widely as a place where people exceeded the limit; he said that had he known, he would have driven at a lower speed. The answer of course is that he should have driven at no moe than the limit whether a camera was there or not.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    If I were a copper and you were 20 over the limit in a residential area you wouldn't have got a ticket. You'd have got a court summons and I'd be recommending a lengthy ban.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    If I were a copper and you were 20 over the limit in a residential area you wouldn't have got a ticket. You'd have got a court summons and I'd be recommending a lengthy ban.

    I think you're in a different jurisdiction.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    If I were a copper and you were 20 over the limit in a residential area you wouldn't have got a ticket. You'd have got a court summons and I'd be recommending a lengthy ban.

    I think you're in a different jurisdiction.

    And in a different job. Point being?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 24
    Gee D wrote: »
    I remember a batch of letters to the SMH a couple of years ago from people caught by speed cameras. The general tenor was that the use of concealed or unannounced cameras was unfair. One writer complained of a camera being placed on his usual journey to work through a tunnel known widely as a place where people exceeded the limit; he said that had he known, he would have driven at a lower speed. The answer of course is that he should have driven at no moe than the limit whether a camera was there or not.

    Well yes, but this is the climate of motorist entitlement we have created. Despite bad driving killing about twice as many people as murderers every year in the UK, people pulled over frequently retort that police should be stopping "real criminals".

    Concealed speed cameras, reduce the automatic ban under the "totting up" to six points (that's two speeding offences), remove the "excessive hardship" get out clause from the automatic ban, require a retest of all banned motorists before they're given their licence back and I think we'd see driving standards improve dramatically.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I remember a batch of letters to the SMH a couple of years ago from people caught by speed cameras. The general tenor was that the use of concealed or unannounced cameras was unfair. One writer complained of a camera being placed on his usual journey to work through a tunnel known widely as a place where people exceeded the limit; he said that had he known, he would have driven at a lower speed. The answer of course is that he should have driven at no moe than the limit whether a camera was there or not.

    Well yes, but this is the climate of motorist entitlement we have created. Despite bad driving killing about twice as many people as murderers every year in the UK, people pulled over frequently retort that police should be stopping "real criminals".

    Concealed speed cameras, reduce the automatic ban under the "totting up" to six points (that's two speeding offences), remove the "excessive hardship" get out clause from the automatic ban, require a retest of all banned motorists before they're given their licence back and I think we'd see driving standards improve dramatically.

    A substantial part of the problem is the whole notion of "motoring offences". These were, AFAICR, devised in the twenties when motorists who had caused death or injury by driving dangerously, recklessly, while drunk or just too quickly were charged with GBH or manslaughter. At that time there was still a property qualification for service on a jury and those on a jury were pretty much the kind of people who owned motor cars and would therefore be in the dock. Naturally, the jurors were reluctant to see their own kind convicted of serious offences and sent down for a number of years, so lesser charges with comparatively lenient sentences were introduced. It was (and is) possible for motorists to be charged with manslaughter but it has to be pretty extreme.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 24
    @Simon Toad said I bloody hate speed cameras.

    I don’t.

    When there are no cameras and I’m doing one mph above the speed limit (which I always do, unless I need to go slower - I don’t exceed the limit by any more than one and use my adaptive cruise control) the impatient drivers, who want to speed, behind me make me anxious.

    The reason I go one above is that my car seems to be calibrated slow. Those cameras which tell you your speed are always spot on for my car when it’s one above.

    If there are variable cameras on the road I can relax because the idiots calm down.

    When there are no cameras I catch up with the speeders at the next traffic lights anyway. They’d be much better drivers if they lost their impatience.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I was doing at least 20 clicks over in a side street that morning. I bloody hate speed cameras.
    Then you clearly have something to be concerned about as witness the 20 clicks over remark.

    OK if you want to kill yourself but give everyone else a fighting chance

    I can't remember because it was back in the 80's, but I was probably still either pissed or ripped or both. I was late for a 5am-ish start where I had to get the shop open so the lads could all fill up their bikes with Saturday morning newspapers and get them delivered. I was a teenager at the time too, so I probably wasn't focussing on the road and on maybe two hours sleep I might have been nodding off too.

    Ahh to have been young and survived. :)
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    …and not to have killed anyone else!
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    My friend witnessed an accident. She was first on the scene and administered CPR because the parents were standing by. But she knew the four year old boy was dead.

    The eighteen year old boy, who had been speeding and killed the boy, was screaming.

    His life and that of the boy’s family and friends changed forever.

    I don’t like your flippant tone @Simon Toad. This subject is a matter of life and death.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    My friend witnessed an accident. She was first on the scene and administered CPR because the parents were standing by. But she knew the four year old boy was dead.

    The eighteen year old boy, who had been speeding and killed the boy, was screaming.

    His life and that of the boy’s family and friends changed forever.

    I don’t like your flippant tone @Simon Toad. This subject is a matter of life and death.

    Quite right Boogie. It's no excuse for flippancy besides which (as the saying goes) old habits die hard. SimonToad how do I know you don't still do this and are yourself an accident waiting to happen?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Ahh to have been young and survived. :)
    This is part of the problem. People equate chance with an ability they do not possess.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 24
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    I think we need both. We need to catch the buggers who slow down for them then drive like a twat when they can't see one. People who only obey road laws through fear of prosecution are dangerous and frankly I want them off the road.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    I think we need both. We need to catch the buggers who slow down for them then drive like a twat when they can't see one.
    The vehicle safety side of me thinks speed cameras should be on every road and the civil libertarian in me just fainted.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 24
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    I think we need both. We need to catch the buggers who slow down for them then drive like a twat when they can't see one.
    The vehicle safety side of me thinks speed cameras should be on every road and the civil libertarian in me just fainted.

    All motorways will have average speed cameras pretty soon.

  • What has worked very well, surprisingly so, on the A9 has been average speed cameras, which don't just take your speed at one point but over a distance. The number of fatal crashes has dropped substantially. (Of course with these, if you get behind a tractor for a few miles you can do a bit of over-the-limit afterwards and still maintain a legal average speed, but not many seem to.) Raising the speed limit for lorries to 50 instead of the previous 40 has helped improve impatience as well.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    If I were a copper and you were 20 over the limit in a residential area you wouldn't have got a ticket. You'd have got a court summons and I'd be recommending a lengthy ban.

    I think you're in a different jurisdiction.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    If I were a copper and you were 20 over the limit in a residential area you wouldn't have got a ticket. You'd have got a court summons and I'd be recommending a lengthy ban.

    I think you're in a different jurisdiction.

    And in a different job. Point being?

    Aha, I'm now retired! The point is that the procedure you suggest does not apply here.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    My friend witnessed an accident. She was first on the scene and administered CPR because the parents were standing by. But she knew the four year old boy was dead.

    The eighteen year old boy, who had been speeding and killed the boy, was screaming.

    His life and that of the boy’s family and friends changed forever.

    I don’t like your flippant tone @Simon Toad. This subject is a matter of life and death.

    The point was that if Prince Phillip gets an easy go with the Rozzers he isn't the only one.

    Parsimonious tut-tutting on this thread leaves me cold.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    My friend witnessed an accident. She was first on the scene and administered CPR because the parents were standing by. But she knew the four year old boy was dead.

    The eighteen year old boy, who had been speeding and killed the boy, was screaming.

    His life and that of the boy’s family and friends changed forever.

    I don’t like your flippant tone @Simon Toad. This subject is a matter of life and death.

    Quite right Boogie. It's no excuse for flippancy besides which (as the saying goes) old habits die hard. SimonToad how do I know you don't still do this and are yourself an accident waiting to happen?

    Mark, I and billions of others are bad drivers. I suggest you find yourself a bubble suit, or just develop a healthy case of agoraphobia. Every time you step out of your house, you could die or even worse, and I too, like Boogie's friend, know what even worse looks like.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    [tangent] By rights, I should have been ticketed on Sunday. My wife and I were traveling to an out of town destination. I had taken the wrong exit, so I turned around at the next intersection and got on the right highway and I started to speed up. As I merged onto the thoroughfare I was going 66 in a 45 zone. Sure enough, there was a patrol car sitting at the end of the merge lane. When I saw him I immediately pulled to the side before he could get his lights on. I probably would have gotten a ticket if I had not done that. I got a written warning, which means that if I am stopped again in the next 30 days I will get two tickets. I will be on my best behavior for a while. [/tangent]
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Parsimonious tut-tutting on this thread leaves me cold.

    I think you mean "sanctimonious", don't you, ST?

  • @Simon Toad
    There is a reason laws exist to govern driving and it isn't because the man is down on the people. Nearly every speed limit is a compromise between safety, traffic flow and response to whinging. Going the limit is already more dangerous than is safe, the calculations have been done on what is an acceptable loss of life and health. Speeding is dangerous, whether you accept it or not.
    I love to drive. I love to drive fast. However, I do not pretend that this is not dangerous to other people.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    Except that what speed cameras often cause is people suddenly slamming on the anchors when the dreaded yellow box comes in to view - which seems to me to be more dangerous than the initial speeding.

    Average speed cameras avoid this problem.
  • Kittyville wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Parsimonious tut-tutting on this thread leaves me cold.

    I think you mean "sanctimonious", don't you, ST?

    I do. Thanks Kitty.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Simon Toad
    There is a reason laws exist to govern driving and it isn't because the man is down on the people. Nearly every speed limit is a compromise between safety, traffic flow and response to whinging. Going the limit is already more dangerous than is safe, the calculations have been done on what is an acceptable loss of life and health. Speeding is dangerous, whether you accept it or not.
    I love to drive. I love to drive fast. However, I do not pretend that this is not dangerous to other people.

    neither do I.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    Except that what speed cameras often cause is people suddenly slamming on the anchors when the dreaded yellow box comes in to view - which seems to me to be more dangerous than the initial speeding.

    Average speed cameras avoid this problem.

    Yellow boxes? You lucky lucky bastards. Here they hide them in cars parked on the side of the road.
  • There's a classic meme in American culture of country cops hiding in their vehicle behind a roadside billboard, just waiting for a speeder to come along.
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Mark, I and billions of others are bad drivers. I suggest you find yourself a bubble suit, or ust develop a healthy case of agoraphobia. Every time you step out of your house, you could die or even worse, and I too, like Boogie's friend, know what even worse looks like.
    Why should I have to stay inside because of someone else's idiocy - especially when they can be safe but choose not to? It is not as if you have to speed or drink: you choose to do so.

    Things happen, no one denies that, but most of us at least try to give due consideration to other people and that means watching what we do and how we behave. It is not all about me and my needs.

    There's a general expectancy that when I step outside my door, there isn't someone out there trying to kill me. If you drink, speed, drug yourself and then drive you're suggesting to me that expectancy might just be wrong even if unintended.

    As for even worse - you've really no idea what I have and haven't seen.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    Except that what speed cameras often cause is people suddenly slamming on the anchors when the dreaded yellow box comes in to view - which seems to me to be more dangerous than the initial speeding.

    Average speed cameras avoid this problem.

    Yellow boxes? You lucky lucky bastards. Here they hide them in cars parked on the side of the road.

    Been caught and have points on our licence have we?
  • Kittyville wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Parsimonious tut-tutting on this thread leaves me cold.

    I think you mean "sanctimonious", don't you, ST?

    When you've seen a few mangled bodies and dealt with grieving families, you may see it differently. You might just be the tanked up speeding driver who sits in the corner weeping though.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    Except that what speed cameras often cause is people suddenly slamming on the anchors when the dreaded yellow box comes in to view - which seems to me to be more dangerous than the initial speeding.

    Average speed cameras avoid this problem.

    Yellow boxes? You lucky lucky bastards. Here they hide them in cars parked on the side of the road.

    You could just try not speeding. Then it doesn't matter where they are.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Kittyville wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Parsimonious tut-tutting on this thread leaves me cold.

    I think you mean "sanctimonious", don't you, ST?

    I do. Thanks Kitty.

    I’m not being sanctimonious, I’m being realistic. You could have easily been that screaming 18 year old. Maybe yet will be even now if you are as bad a driver as you’re saying.

    The story of this thread would have been very different if that baby or the other people in the car had been killed.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Mark, I and billions of others are bad drivers. I suggest you find yourself a bubble suit, or ust develop a healthy case of agoraphobia. Every time you step out of your house, you could die or even worse, and I too, like Boogie's friend, know what even worse looks like.
    Why should I have to stay inside because of someone else's idiocy - especially when they can be safe but choose not to? It is not as if you have to speed or drink: you choose to do so.

    Things happen, no one denies that, but most of us at least try to give due consideration to other people and that means watching what we do and how we behave. It is not all about me and my needs.

    There's a general expectancy that when I step outside my door, there isn't someone out there trying to kill me. If you drink, speed, drug yourself and then drive you're suggesting to me that expectancy might just be wrong even if unintended.

    As for even worse - you've really no idea what I have and haven't seen.

    To be safe, mate. You have to do that to be safe because I and the rest of the world might be driving like idiots.

    Who knows, one day you might realise you've been an idiot too, and maybe that will impact upon your approach to others.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    Except that what speed cameras often cause is people suddenly slamming on the anchors when the dreaded yellow box comes in to view - which seems to me to be more dangerous than the initial speeding.

    Average speed cameras avoid this problem.

    Yellow boxes? You lucky lucky bastards. Here they hide them in cars parked on the side of the road.

    Been caught and have points on our licence have we?

    Yeah. I got close to losing my license on points back in 2000 when I was in full on gambling addiction. I used to get pinged on a set of fixed cameras that was near the casino. You might ask why I didn't learn my lesson, and the answer is that I really didn't give a crap about anything except getting my arse on a seat at a blackjack table and staying there for as long as possible. When you are in that sort of a state, and you are too gutless to slit your wrists, dying on the roads seems like a good option. It doesn't look like suicide, you won't give your family that grief so you know, driving into a really big tree might be the way to go. The problem isn't so much that you might kill or injure someone else it is, as Boogie points out in another way, the risk of surviving. That would be awful, to have to live with major disability, probably a significant brain injury, possibly not having the capacity to kill yourself and all the while knowing that it was you yourself who did it.

    I worked with someone who was I think a psychologist before she and her husband were involved in a serious accident. She had a very significant brain injury and was severely incapacitated. She needed help for the most basic tasks. Toileting, eating, showering, every facet of her existence required the intervention of someone else. When I knew her she had lost the power of speech, so she couldn't tell you what she wanted, or if she was in pain, other than with very limited gestures. She loved slapstick. My first shift ever as a care worker I worked at her group home. I was unfamiliar with the operation of an electric toothbrush. I wet the brush, I put the toothpaste on, I switched the toothbrush on while looking at it intently to determine how it worked. Toothpaste and water covered my face. The lady just pissed herself laughing and every time she saw me for about a year she would start laughing. She died last year, about 10 years after I first met her.

    I met this woman quite a while after I would spend some of my driving time deciding whether I would kill myself in a road accident that day.

    So Mark, you are screwed. It might not be fair that you, who claim to be a law abiding citizen, is killed in a road traffic accident, or worse, survive such an accident. But the odds are that you will encounter somebody behaving abnormally on the road, and that might result in such an accident. You have to decide every day whether you are going to take that risk or stay at home.
  • This thread is about Prince Phillip. As I am a narcissist, I have no trouble at all in continuing to discuss my driving. It keeps the focus squarely on me, a topic in which I have great expertise.

    However, I do think its time you all realised that I am right about HRH and his driving. If you require a summary of my views they are:

    1. Prince Philip is entitled to drive if he has the requisite permission to drive.
    2. Prince Philip has not had treatment from the Filth any more special than my treatment by the Victorian Filth.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Kittyville wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Parsimonious tut-tutting on this thread leaves me cold.

    I think you mean "sanctimonious", don't you, ST?

    I do. Thanks Kitty.

    I’m not being sanctimonious, I’m being realistic. You could have easily been that screaming 18 year old. Maybe yet will be even now if you are as bad a driver as you’re saying.

    The story of this thread would have been very different if that baby or the other people in the car had been killed.

    Really? I'm not sure. People seem very keen to jump all over the Prince at any opportunity.
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Mark, I and billions of others are bad drivers. I suggest you find yourself a bubble suit, or ust develop a healthy case of agoraphobia. Every time you step out of your house, you could die or even worse, and I too, like Boogie's friend, know what even worse looks like.
    Why should I have to stay inside because of someone else's idiocy - especially when they can be safe but choose not to? It is not as if you have to speed or drink: you choose to do so.

    Things happen, no one denies that, but most of us at least try to give due consideration to other people and that means watching what we do and how we behave. It is not all about me and my needs.

    There's a general expectancy that when I step outside my door, there isn't someone out there trying to kill me. If you drink, speed, drug yourself and then drive you're suggesting to me that expectancy might just be wrong even if unintended.

    As for even worse - you've really no idea what I have and haven't seen.

    To be safe, mate. You have to do that to be safe because I and the rest of the world might be driving like idiots.

    Who knows, one day you might realise you've been an idiot too, and maybe that will impact upon your approach to others.
    I realise that now - and yes, it does impact the way I view and approach others.

    By the way, why are you so annoyed by (and in) this discussion on speeding?


  • Beware speed cameras, fixed or handheld: they can be wrong. I was one of many who had a conviction overturned when it was proved that the camera that had "caught" us was not reliable - so much so that it timed a brick wall at 14 mph. I was lucky - my insurance company refunded the extra premium and expunged my record, but how many others weren't so lucky?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    I think we need both. We need to catch the buggers who slow down for them then drive like a twat when they can't see one.
    The vehicle safety side of me thinks speed cameras should be on every road and the civil libertarian in me just fainted.

    Once one gets in (supposed) control of anything with the destructive potential of a motor vehicle it is reasonable for one's rights and liberties to be constrained on a utilitarian and reciprocal basis: after all, would you like everyone else driving without constraints?
  • As Prince Philip is to road safety so is the Queen and Sandringham WI to Brexit
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Mark, I and billions of others are bad drivers. I suggest you find yourself a bubble suit, or ust develop a healthy case of agoraphobia. Every time you step out of your house, you could die or even worse, and I too, like Boogie's friend, know what even worse looks like.
    Why should I have to stay inside because of someone else's idiocy - especially when they can be safe but choose not to? It is not as if you have to speed or drink: you choose to do so.

    Things happen, no one denies that, but most of us at least try to give due consideration to other people and that means watching what we do and how we behave. It is not all about me and my needs.

    There's a general expectancy that when I step outside my door, there isn't someone out there trying to kill me. If you drink, speed, drug yourself and then drive you're suggesting to me that expectancy might just be wrong even if unintended.

    As for even worse - you've really no idea what I have and haven't seen.

    To be safe, mate. You have to do that to be safe because I and the rest of the world might be driving like idiots.

    Who knows, one day you might realise you've been an idiot too, and maybe that will impact upon your approach to others.
    I realise that now - and yes, it does impact the way I view and approach others.

    By the way, why are you so annoyed by (and in) this discussion on speeding?


    Dunno. I think I got on my high horse when Boogie responded with the road accident thing.
  • edited January 25
    Back to #CrashNotAccident. Driver error, carelessness. Road design problems. Unless the devil or God did it.

    Drive the speed limit. You drive over it, you are at fault and deserve a ticket. It's not the camera's fault nor the law. I'd personally like to see monitoring boxes in cars which GPS position the auto and fire off sirens inside the vehicle if the driver speeds. And automagically fine the driver. Far too many crashes and collisions. A public health emergency. Zero tolerance. No whining accepted.

    For info: was part of policy development for no-fault injury insurance (you cannot sue here) and all penalties are administrative. And very expensive**. All you need is to spend time with permanently injured people and families of deceased to get it.

    **There's immediate impounding of the car regardless of ownership if speeding is beyond a limit, and driver has roadside suspension. Using your cell phone is the same. As is various forms of dangerous behaviour. Speed cam tickets go to the car owner. Drivers pay for all sorts of remediation if they misbehave. I've no patience whatsoever with excuses.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Simon Toad said - As I am a narcissist ....

    That explains a lot. People who think only of themselves won’t care how they drive or how this affects others.

    The question then becomes ‘how do we keep the roads safe from those who don’t care how recklessly they drive?’

    I would say average speed cameras, everywhere. And, as @NOprophet_NØprofit suggests, monitoring boxes in cars plus large penalties, preferably paid in big compensation payouts for victims and their families.

    It’s a shame the many need to suffer due to the selfishness of the few, but it was always so - sadly.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    So Mark, you are screwed. It might not be fair that you, who claim to be a law abiding citizen, is killed in a road traffic accident, or worse, survive such an accident. But the odds are that you will encounter somebody behaving abnormally on the road, and that might result in such an accident. You have to decide every day whether you are going to take that risk or stay at home.
    None of this excuses wantonly speeding.
    And arguing that the world is dangerous does not excuse adding to it.
    It is akin to saying "Might as well fire bullets into the air in the heart of Sydney, because people die there everyday."

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    This thread is about Prince Phillip. As I am a narcissist, I have no trouble at all in continuing to discuss my driving. It keeps the focus squarely on me, a topic in which I have great expertise.

    However, I do think its time you all realised that I am right about HRH and his driving. If you require a summary of my views they are:

    1. Prince Philip is entitled to drive if he has the requisite permission to drive.
    This is true, but ignores the question of whether he should exercise this right.
    2. Prince Philip has not had treatment from the Filth any more special than my treatment by the Victorian Filth.
    That he has or has not are both assumptions.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 25
    sionisais wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Concealed speed cameras,
    I don't agree. Whilst I think it completely fair to hide speed cameras, I also think it not as effective. Does the thought that there might be a security camera deter thieves? No. The open presence of security systems do.

    I think we need both. We need to catch the buggers who slow down for them then drive like a twat when they can't see one.
    The vehicle safety side of me thinks speed cameras should be on every road and the civil libertarian in me just fainted.

    Once one gets in (supposed) control of anything with the destructive potential of a motor vehicle it is reasonable for one's rights and liberties to be constrained on a utilitarian and reciprocal basis: after all, would you like everyone else driving without constraints?
    civ·il lib·er·ty
    noun
    the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech.
    So the presence of speed cameras to trap speeders falls outside of those concerns. The use of speed cameras outside of catching speeders falls inside.
    And whilst I do not think Big Brother is up and running, we do have instances of Little Brother being naughty. Any tool has the potential for misuse. My comment was meant more as a joke than a statement, but there is a ring of veracity to it.
    There is a balance between freedom and safety. Whilst I do not claim to know where the best balance is, complete surveillance isn't it.
  • The graph on this page shows the effect of road safety strategies in our state since 1970. The suite of road improvements combined with enforcement strategies sees the road toll at its lowest per capita level ever. The latest initiative is the introduction of cameras to detect drivers using mobile phones while on the move. The introduction of mobile random breath testing caused a radical behaviour change with social occasions seeing designated drivers or the use of courtesy buses, and the resulting drastic decline of fatalities associated with drink-driving. Mobile drug-testing has recently been added to that regime. A recent news report highlighted that over 60% of fatalities in the past year were in regional areas, with the victims often locals not far from home. Given that over 60% of the state's population resides in the capital city this disproportionate fatality rate is the next challenge.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    @Simon Toad said - As I am a narcissist ....

    That explains a lot. People who think only of themselves won’t care how they drive or how this affects others.

    The question then becomes ‘how do we keep the roads safe from those who don’t care how recklessly they drive?’

    I would say average speed cameras, everywhere. And, as @NOprophet_NØprofit suggests, monitoring boxes in cars plus large penalties, preferably paid in big compensation payouts for victims and their families.

    It’s a shame the many need to suffer due to the selfishness of the few, but it was always so - sadly.

    It's the way of humanity, and I think that those who are selfish one day might well be selfless the next, and that those who judge one day may well be judged the next. Certainly St Paul knew that. Surely the blessed capacity to forgive derives from a deep familiarity with our own flaws.
Sign In or Register to comment.