Boris J on Road Safety etc (long)

Boris manages to be all things to all men in his article in the
Telegraph:

My friends, I am a doomed man. If I read this latest letter
correctly, I am on the point of losing the right to drive.

The state will shortly take away from me the privilege I
first earned at the age of 18, when, after massive
investment in the British School of Motoring, I passed my
driving test first time.

Since then, I have driven many hundreds of thousands of
miles, in dozens of countries, and never yet had a
prang. Not a single person has been thrown from my
bumper; not a deer, not a cat, not a dog, not even, dare
I say it, a mouse.

If you discount the minor flesh wound sustained by a Cornish
meat pie van that brushed my Alfa very late at night some
years ago, I have barely come into physical contact with
another vehicle, so scrupulous is my driving.

Wherever I go, I see louts who pull out without looking, who
overtake on blind corners, who fling open their doors just
as I am coming by on my bicycle.

I see idiots and crash-artists and prangmeisters and fools
who change nappies on the hard shoulder; and in all this
carnival of incompetence and carelessness it is I - I, who
have never so much as crunched a headlight! I, who have
never even stoved in a bonnet, boot or door! - I am being
taken off the road.

According to my secretary, Batley-born Ann Sindall, I have
now been photographed so often by the same speed camera,
exceeding the speed limit by the same pathetic amount, that,
come September, the game will be up.

She has been counting the letters from the police, and
totting up the points. The emanations of the state will be
warned that I am no longer allowed on the Queen's highway,
and any breach of the ban will be an imprisonable offence.

But it's not fair! I wail to her. I'm a safe driver, I
whimper; and she just chuckles, like **** Dastardly's
dog, Muttley.

"Eeeyup," she says, "the law's the law." And, of course, she
is right. In so far as speed cameras save lives, there is no
arguing against them.

It is all very well launching into some libertarian rant
against the oppressions of the state, and J Bonington
Jagsworth's basic right to drive but just you try it on
someone who has lost a relative because some berk was
going too fast.

Insofar as speed cameras restore some measure of
tranquillity to villages cursed by a fast road, they must be
a good thing. If speed cameras could ensure that country
roads were safe enough for children to cycle on, I'd have
Gatsos on every sign post.

We drivers must simply accept that speed cameras have
changed the meaning of the signs by the side of the road.
When it says 50, it is no longer meant to be an indicative
sort of number, like ``Drinks,
6.30pm''.

It means that, if you go above 50mph, you will not only be
in breach of the law, but you will also be punished for
breaching the law in cruel and material ways. If, for
instance, you write a motoring column for GQ magazine, you
will have your livelihood taken away.

We drivers must accept that these cameras are no longer
Potemkin objects, as they seemed to be for the first few
years, empty scarecrows with no film in them.

I don't know what technical advance is responsible, but the
cameras are now like the most ruthless of tabloid paparazzi:
they get you every time.

It is precisely because they are so effective, and because
technology has so emphatically given the state the whip hand
over the motorist, that I now ask you, ladies and gentlemen
of the jury, whether you feel that the punishments need to
be adjusted.

You may feel that this is special pleading from a man who
faces the prospect of being forced to go to and from his
constituency by train. Well, I suppose I had better put my
hands up to that.

But I have reason to think that I am not alone in my
bitterness. The other day, I was with a group of parents
watching Johnny English, and, though the children laughed
like drains at the lavatory gags, there was only one moment
when the adults all cheered and punched the air, and that
was when the special agent's supercar destroys a speed
camera with a sidewinder missile.

These cameras are bringing misery and uncertainty to many
people who are safe drivers, and who depend on their cars,
and the cameras do this because their sheer efficiency means
the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

You fail a handful of times to ease up at the same camera,
and bang, you've lost your licence.

Let us by all means use the cameras to enforce the speed
limit; let us continue to allow local authorities to
locate the cameras where they choose, under the rules
allowed by the law.

But let us be honest that these cameras are at least partly
there to raise revenue - 50 per cent of the cash goes to the
Treasury and, though there has been a fourfold increase in
their use since 1997, the number of deaths on the road has
remained static; and given that they are really a kind of
cash machine for the state, the state should be
understanding of the sense of tyranny the cameras create.

It is time for the jackboot to come off the neck of the
motorist. The Tories have been urging the Government to see
sense, and stop banning drivers who have only been exceeding
the limits by small amounts.

I am delighted to see that the Government has agreed, though
it may come too late for me. We already have the most
expensive fuel in Europe, now likely to rise higher. We have
more and more speed bumps knocking off our exhausts.

If all this goes on, there will be a revolt on the roads,
and I will be there, too, if only on my bicycle.

"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> writes:

> But let us be honest that these cameras are at least
> partly there to raise revenue - 50 per cent of the cash
> goes to the Treasury and, though there has been a fourfold
> increase in their use since 1997, the number of deaths on
> the road has remained static; and given that they are
> really a kind of cash machine for the state, the state
> should be understanding of the sense of tyranny the
> cameras create.

If the cameras are having no effect on the behaviour of
motorists, surely that's an argument for making the
punishment more severe, not less so?

But there's a statistic missing here: the number of deaths
on the road has remained static over the last seven years,
but how has the overall number of vehicles, or miles driven,
changed over this time?

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"

"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> writes:

> But let us be honest that these cameras are at least
> partly there to raise revenue - 50 per cent of the cash
> goes to the Treasury and, though there has been a fourfold
> increase in their use since 1997, the number of deaths on
> the road has remained static; and given that they are
> really a kind of cash machine for the state, the state
> should be understanding of the sense of tyranny the
> cameras create.

If the cameras are having no effect on the behaviour of
motorists, surely that's an argument for making the
punishment more severe, not less so?

But there's a statistic missing here: the number of deaths
on the road has remained static over the last seven years,
but how has the overall number of vehicles, or miles driven,
changed over this time?

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"

[Not Responding] wrote:

> Boris manages to be all things to all men in his article
> in the Telegraph:
>
<snip the whingeing parts>
>
> If all this goes on, there will be a revolt on the roads,
> and I will be there, too, if only on my bicycle.....
>
.....Leaner and fitter and with a totally different
point of view.

[Not Responding] wrote:

> Boris manages to be all things to all men in his article
> in the Telegraph:
>
<snip the whingeing parts>
>
> If all this goes on, there will be a revolt on the roads,
> and I will be there, too, if only on my bicycle.....
>
.....Leaner and fitter and with a totally different
point of view.

"Terry D" <name.surname@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:dC9rc.3359$Og7.3174@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
> [Not Responding] wrote:
>
> > Boris manages to be all things to all men in his article
> > in the Telegraph:
> >
> <snip the whingeing parts>
> >
> > If all this goes on, there will be a revolt on the
> > roads, and I will be there, too, if only on my
> > bicycle.....
> >
> .....Leaner and fitter and with a totally different point
> of view.

I believe Boris is already a regular cyclist.

In article <dC9rc.3359$Og7.3174@newsfe5-
gui.server.ntli.net>, name.surname@ntlworld.com says...
> [Not Responding] wrote:
>
> > Boris manages to be all things to all men in his article
> > in the Telegraph:
> >
> <snip the whingeing parts>
> >
> > If all this goes on, there will be a revolt on the
> > roads, and I will be there, too, if only on my
> > bicycle.....
> >
> .....Leaner and fitter and with a totally different point
> of view.
>
Boris is a regular cyclist as I understand it. he even
mentions the toss pots in motors from a cyclist pov in
his artical.
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

In article <dC9rc.3359$Og7.3174@newsfe5-
gui.server.ntli.net>, name.surname@ntlworld.com says...
> [Not Responding] wrote:
>
> > Boris manages to be all things to all men in his article
> > in the Telegraph:
> >
> <snip the whingeing parts>
> >
> > If all this goes on, there will be a revolt on the
> > roads, and I will be there, too, if only on my
> > bicycle.....
> >
> .....Leaner and fitter and with a totally different point
> of view.
>
Boris is a regular cyclist as I understand it. he even
mentions the toss pots in motors from a cyclist pov in
his artical.
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 21:43:54 +0100, Terry D
<name.surname@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>> If all this goes on, there will be a revolt on the roads,
>> and I will be there, too, if only on my bicycle.....
>>
>.....Leaner and fitter and with a totally different
>point of view.

Maybe. But Boris is already a regular cyclist.

"Daniel Barlow" <dan@telent.net> wrote in message
news:87ad02zvbm.fsf@noetbook.telent.net...
> "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid>
> writes:
>
> > But let us be honest that these cameras are at least
> > partly there to raise revenue - 50 per cent of the cash
> > goes to the Treasury and, though there has been a
> > fourfold increase in their use since 1997, the number of
> > deaths on the road has remained static; and given that
> > they are really a kind of cash machine for the state,
> > the state should be understanding of the sense of
> > tyranny the cameras create.
>
> If the cameras are having no effect on the behaviour of
> motorists, surely that's an argument for making the
> punishment more severe, not less so?
>
> But there's a statistic missing here: the number of deaths
> on the road has remained static over the last seven years,
> but how has the overall number of vehicles, or miles
> driven, changed over this time?

Deaths on the road static, but injuries still declining year
on year. Its improving steadily.

J

[Not Responding] wrote:
> Boris manages to be all things to all men in his article
> in the Telegraph:
>
>
>
> My friends, I am a doomed man. If I read this latest
> letter correctly, I am on the point of losing the right
> to drive.
>

Come on Boris, behind all that grown up schoolboy facade you
are a seemingly intelligent man. Yet you failed to learn
from your first mistake and continued to repeat it despite
the obvious signs as to where you would end up.

Personally I think the article is to pre-empt the press for
when his ban is eventually announced.

Tony

That /proves/ he's an idiot. Where is mine trusty fork?

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

"Daniel Barlow" <dan@telent.net> wrote in message
news:87ad02zvbm.fsf@noetbook.telent.net...
> "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid>
> writes:
>
> But there's a statistic missing here: the number of deaths
> on the road has remained static over the last seven years,
> but how has the overall number of vehicles, or miles
> driven, changed over this time?

Our casualty figures in Hull are at an all time low as
25% of the city is 20 mph. There are no cameras, only
humps and other calming measures. The city will be 60% 20
mph by 2010.

--
Simon M.

"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com>typed

> Come on Boris, behind all that grown up schoolboy facade
> you are a seemingly intelligent man. Yet you failed to
> learn from your first mistake and continued to repeat it
> despite the obvious signs as to where you would end up.

> Personally I think the article is to pre-empt the press
> for when his ban is eventually announced.

> Tony

Wot 'e said.

I've not (yet!) forgotten that a psychopath,
characteristically, fails to learn from experience and does
not show remorse...

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 21:11:52 +0100 someone who may be "[Not
Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote this:-

>According to my secretary, Batley-born Ann Sindall, I have
>now been photographed so often by the same speed camera,
>exceeding the speed limit by the same pathetic amount,
>that, come September, the game will be up.

The thing that amuses me about those wailing that they
were "only slightly" over the speed limit is that the
police already get rid of this excuse by the settings of
the camera.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.