Velvet said:Ian Smith said:They stopped about 100 cars. Apparently:
42 were not properly taxed
23 received fixed penalty notices for not wearing seatbelts
2 were ordered off teh road as unsafe vehicles
5 were given orders to have repairs made immediately
1 had no licence or insurance
10 received varous verbal warnings
I'd be interested to know if that's actually accurate, or whether
they've reported (as an example) 42 not taxed, 23 not wearing seatbelts,
of which 15 were both not taxed nor wearing seatbelts, which would lead
you to surmise that actually, more than 20% were fully legal..
I wondered that as well, which is why I put in teh 'apparently'.
However, even if you put it on the minimum possible spread (at least
as unlikely) there's 40% or so at fault. It _is_ possible that the
figures as presented are correct - if they worked down a checklist
until they got to one failure in order to then justify giving the
motorist some general road safety pep-talk, for example, they'd find
no more than one failure per car.
Anyway, teh casualty reduction officer quoted in teh article has
attended teh local cycle forum meetings, so I may get an opportunity
to find more details.
Meanwhile, on teh next page, a driver who managed 80mph, lost control,
left the road and ran up a bank, cleared a fence, rolled over twice in
a field teh other side, had false number plates on and told police at
the scene that someone else had been driving ... walked free from
court because although found guilty, had already been remanded in
custody for six weeks.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
