Don't blame it on....

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Feb 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    Dear oh dear, what a lot of moaning minnies they are over on uk.tosspot. As ever Mr. Safety has come
    up with some figures which "prove" that speed cameras are responsible for (read this carefully) a
    reduction in the downward trend of road fatalities. Yes, that's right, road fatalities are still
    going down, but according to Mr Safety, cameras are responsible for 1000 deaths every year!

    You will note that drivers are absolved of anny bame in the matter.

    Having been challenged to prove it wasn't one of the other factors which changed over the same
    period - like police cutbacks (unrelated to cameras, of course, since every area of public service
    was cut back in the 1990s), airbags, ABS, Jeremy Clarkson or the acute selfishness which now
    pervades some parts of society, Mr Safety took refuge in "I prediucted this would happen, I've
    looked for it, and lo! and behold! it has come to pass."

    Anyway, I was riding along this evening humming a little tune when I suddenly realised - the words
    of the Jackson Five's seminal hit "Don't Blame It On The Boogie" were merging in my mind with a
    different and wholly more seditious lyric.

    Here, dear reader, is that subversive song:

    Don't Blame It On The Cagers
    ============================
    Those cagers always speeding And it wouldn't be a bad thing But the cameras are flashing And the
    points pile high

    I sped right up the M1 Like I was really someone From that night I kissed My licence goodbye

    CHORUS Don't blame it on the cagers Don't blame it on the selfish Don't blame it on the speeding
    Blame it on the camera.

    Don't you blame it on cagers Don't blame it on selfish Don't blame it on speeding Blame it on
    the camera.

    Illegal speeding bugs me But somehow it has drugged me Engine rhythm gets me My lead feet.

    I've changed my life completely The motor has consumed me My baby just won't take A car with me.

    CHORUS

    I just can't I just can't I just can't control myself.

    I just can't I just can't I just can't control myself.

    CHORUS

    This tragic motor grooves me That dirty greenhouse moves me The devil's gotten to me Driving
    in a trance.

    I'm full of traffic anger A fire burns inside me Speeding's got me in a Cager trance

    CHORUS

    Cagers Selfish Speeding Camera

    Cagers Selfish Speeding Camera

    Don't you blame it You just got to You just want to Yea -

    Blame it on yourself Ain't nobody's fault But yours and that greenhouse Speeding all night long

    Yours and that greenhouse Ain't nobody's fault But yours Speeding all night long.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
    Tags:


  2. Alex Graham

    Alex Graham Guest

  3. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Dear oh dear, what a lot of moaning minnies they are over on uk.tosspot.

    Nice! Lately I've been reflecting on how much cars/motorvehicles have 'stolen' from us - they've
    stolen the streets, the minds of most of those who drive them, our health, money, time and in some
    cases even life itself. The thing that drivers believe liberates them from bounds of time and
    place has actually taken over their minds and the lives of all of us. What is worst is the
    self-righteous don't-give-a-damn-about-others attitude that seems to possess the minds of cagers
    and gets so blatantly expressed all the time in uk.tosspot (and of course we see it on the streets
    every day too).

    Rich
     
  4. Richard Goodman wrote:
    > lives of all of us. What is worst is the self-righteous don't-give-a-damn-about-others attitude
    > that seems to possess the minds of

    some/many (surely not all)?????????????

    cagers and gets so blatantly expressed all the time in
    > uk.tosspot (and of course we see it on the streets every day too).
    >
    > Rich

    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  5. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Nice! Lately I've been reflecting on how much cars/motorvehicles have 'stolen' from us - they've
    > stolen the streets, the minds of most of those who drive them, our health, money, time and in some
    > cases even life
    itself.
    > The thing that drivers believe liberates them from bounds of time and
    place
    > has actually taken over their minds and the lives of all of us. What is worst is the
    > self-righteous don't-give-a-damn-about-others attitude that seems to possess the minds of cagers
    > and gets so blatantly expressed all
    the
    > time in uk.tosspot (and of course we see it on the streets every day too).

    You could make similar arguments against most other technical developments through the ages. It is
    the nature of the beast. In ancient Mesopotamia there may well have been some bemoaning (in ancient
    Aramaic) the development of agriculture as it stopped men being real men and enjoying the thrill of
    the daily hunting trips. Certainly the computer and internet has changed my way of life. Most of
    today I will be working from home with colleagues in California and Virginia (when the sleepy-heads
    are awake) -- distance is irrelevant.

    Piped water & sewage may have triggered the biggest improvement in the health of people ever -- but
    you can imaging that it destroyed the daily chin wag down the local well or while strolling down the
    garden path.

    Remember also that automobiles were first seen as the solution to a major environmental problem --
    our cities were disappearing under tonnes of horse shit every day.

    The problem is not particularly the cars -- though they are filthy pollution sources. Rather it is
    the sloppy thinking that suggests the car is the only option, it is the isolation, depersonalisation
    and aggression driving induces and, perhaps most critically, it is the 'freedom' they provide for
    people to live, work, shop and learn in such widely separated location. On uk.tosspot you see people
    saying a car is 'essential' because they live 20, 30, 100 miles from their work -- wrong -- they
    could not sustain that without an effective transport link -- but they could not work in California
    and Virginia simultaneously however fast their car and clear the roads. I can.

    As with most technology the car is a double edged sword. What can be idealised as a tool to provide
    personal freedom has become a serpent strangling the life out of our cities & towns. We can't live
    with it -- but, sadly, tosspots are right -- living without it (or more accurately without motorised
    road transport) will also be very difficult -- at least until the next short term technical fix
    arrives. That remind me -- I must order my shopping from cyber Tesco.

    T
     
  6. Tony W wrote:
    >
    > As with most technology the car is a double edged sword. What can be idealised as a tool to
    > provide personal freedom has become a serpent strangling the life out of our cities & towns. We
    > can't live with it -- but, sadly, tosspots are right -- living without it (or more accurately
    > without motorised road transport) will also be very difficult -- at least until the next short
    > term technical fix arrives. That remind me -- I must order my shopping from cyber Tesco.
    >
    > T

    Does anyone know of any studies that determine the effect that home delivery has on traffic and the
    environment? There's an argument that home delivery increases traffic because every store sends its
    own 'man in a van' to deliver to the customer whereas when people actually go shopping they often
    consolidate several stores into a single trip. There are obviously potential efficiencies to be
    gained by the optimal organisation of delivery rounds but the take up rate of home delivery from
    individual stores needs to be quite high to provide useful delivery densities.

    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  7. "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote: ( Does anyone know of any studies that
    determine the effect that home delivery ) has on traffic and the environment? There's an argument
    that home delivery ( increases traffic because every store sends its own 'man in a van' to ) deliver
    to the customer whereas when people actually go shopping they often ( consolidate several stores
    into a single trip. There are obviously ) potential efficiencies to be gained by the optimal
    organisation of delivery ( rounds but the take up rate of home delivery from individual stores needs
    to ) be quite high to provide useful delivery densities.

    The overheads (and inconveniences) of home delivery surely mean that one orders less often than one
    would shop? And I don't believe that people who shop in the sort of shop that does home delivery by
    man-in-a-van go to much more than one shop on a shopping trip anyway.

    Where it would put more infernal combusion traffic on the road would be if it were to persuade
    someone like me who does the weekend shop on a bicycle to separate the shopping from the exercise.
    (No danger of that while they're still substituting bread rolls for toilet rolls.)

    What it does seem to do is to put on the roads, and more particularly on the streets, more of the
    sort of driving one normally associates with taxi drivers and post office vans. Have you seen your
    local supermarket's delivery man doing his rounds?
     
  8. Geraint Jones wrote:
    > "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote: ( Does anyone know of any studies that
    > determine the effect that home delivery ) has on traffic and the environment? There's an argument
    > that home delivery ( increases traffic because every store sends its own 'man in a van' to )
    > deliver to the customer whereas when people actually go shopping they often ( consolidate several
    > stores into a single trip. There are obviously ) potential efficiencies to be gained by the
    > optimal organisation of delivery ( rounds but the take up rate of home delivery from individual
    > stores needs to ) be quite high to provide useful delivery densities.
    >
    > The overheads (and inconveniences) of home delivery surely mean that one orders less often than
    > one would shop? And I don't believe that people who shop in the sort of shop that does home
    > delivery by man-in-a-van go to much more than one shop on a shopping trip anyway.
    >
    > Where it would put more infernal combusion traffic on the road would be if it were to persuade
    > someone like me who does the weekend shop on a bicycle to separate the shopping from the exercise.
    > (No danger of that while they're still substituting bread rolls for toilet rolls.)
    >
    > What it does seem to do is to put on the roads, and more particularly on the streets, more of the
    > sort of driving one normally associates with taxi drivers and post office vans. Have you seen your
    > local supermarket's delivery man doing his rounds?

    Those are very interesting points. The people who I know who use home delivery tend to use it for
    heavy (e.g. liquids) or bulky (e.g. nappies) items and the regular canned stuff. I don't think they
    go to shops any less frequently because they have these items delivered.

    The van I see most frequently is from Waitrose and I haven't noticed any bad driving. AFAIK the
    driver hasn't even gone over my front lawn - which is something many other people seem to manage
    regularly!
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  9. In the words of my cats...

    APAWZ!!! APAWZ!!!

    Loved it Guy :)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  10. > Geraint Jones wrote:
    >
    > > (No danger of that while they're still substituting bread rolls for toilet rolls.)

    Really, or is this a slight exaggeration? Don't like the sound of it much, especially if they were
    the granary variety - ouch! :-( Mind you, it does sound like the sort of mishap that makes me
    sceptical about buying groceries online....

    David E. Belcher

    Dept. of Chemistry, University of York
     
  11. Raptorman

    Raptorman Guest

    Front page report in our local paper last week (Bucks Free Press - High Wycombe edition) or the week
    before was that accidents and injuries had risen at sites where speed cameras have been installed in
    the last 3 or 4 years.

    No idea where they got the figures from (and not sure I really care) but I thought of you and Mr
    Smith when I was reading it. :)

    Russ

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Dear oh dear, what a lot of moaning minnies they are over on uk.tosspot. As ever Mr. Safety has
    > come up with some figures which "prove" that speed cameras are responsible for (read this
    > carefully) a reduction in the downward trend of road fatalities. Yes, that's right, road
    > fatalities are still going down, but according to Mr Safety, cameras are responsible for 1000
    > deaths every year!
    >
    > You will note that drivers are absolved of anny bame in the matter.
    >
    > Having been challenged to prove it wasn't one of the other factors which changed over the same
    > period - like police cutbacks (unrelated to cameras, of course, since every area of public service
    > was cut back in the 1990s), airbags, ABS, Jeremy Clarkson or the acute selfishness which now
    > pervades some parts of society, Mr Safety took refuge in "I prediucted this would happen, I've
    > looked for it, and lo! and behold! it has come to pass."
    >
    > Anyway, I was riding along this evening humming a little tune when I suddenly realised - the words
    > of the Jackson Five's seminal hit "Don't Blame It On The Boogie" were merging in my mind with a
    > different and wholly more seditious lyric.
    >
    > Here, dear reader, is that subversive song:
    >
    > Don't Blame It On The Cagers
    > ============================
    > Those cagers always speeding And it wouldn't be a bad thing But the cameras are flashing And the
    > points pile high
    >
    > I sped right up the M1 Like I was really someone From that night I kissed My licence goodbye
    >
    > CHORUS Don't blame it on the cagers Don't blame it on the selfish Don't blame it on the speeding
    > Blame it on the camera.
    >
    > Don't you blame it on cagers Don't blame it on selfish Don't blame it on speeding Blame it on
    > the camera.
    >
    > Illegal speeding bugs me But somehow it has drugged me Engine rhythm gets me My lead feet.
    >
    > I've changed my life completely The motor has consumed me My baby just won't take A car with me.
    >
    > CHORUS
    >
    > I just can't I just can't I just can't control myself.
    >
    > I just can't I just can't I just can't control myself.
    >
    > CHORUS
    >
    > This tragic motor grooves me That dirty greenhouse moves me The devil's gotten to me Driving in
    > a trance.
    >
    > I'm full of traffic anger A fire burns inside me Speeding's got me in a Cager trance
    >
    > CHORUS
    >
    > Cagers Selfish Speeding Camera
    >
    > Cagers Selfish Speeding Camera
    >
    > Don't you blame it You just got to You just want to Yea -
    >
    > Blame it on yourself Ain't nobody's fault But yours and that greenhouse Speeding all night long
    >
    > Yours and that greenhouse Ain't nobody's fault But yours Speeding all night long.
    >
    > Guy
    > ===
    > ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    > dynamic DNS permitting)
    > NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    > work. Apologies.
     
  12. On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:45:11 -0000, "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Tony W wrote:
    >>
    >> As with most technology the car is a double edged sword. What can be idealised as a tool to
    >> provide personal freedom has become a serpent strangling the life out of our cities & towns. We
    >> can't live with it -- but, sadly, tosspots are right -- living without it (or more accurately
    >> without motorised road transport) will also be very difficult -- at least until the next short
    >> term technical fix arrives. That remind me -- I must order my shopping from cyber Tesco.
    >>
    >> T
    >
    >Does anyone know of any studies that determine the effect that home delivery has on traffic and the
    >environment? There's an argument that home delivery increases traffic because every store sends its
    >own 'man in a van' to deliver to the customer whereas when people actually go shopping they often
    >consolidate several stores into a single trip. There are obviously potential efficiencies to be
    >gained by the optimal organisation of delivery rounds but the take up rate of home delivery from
    >individual stores needs to be quite high to provide useful delivery densities.

    A couple of other points. You're replacing a number of joe-public 'gifted amateur' drivers with a
    smaller number of professional drivers. These are more likely to try and be 'good' drivers as in a
    retail environment, the reputation of the brand is v. important.

    In terms of pollution, the big fleets are far more incentivised and willing to adopt fuel efficient
    and low pollution technologies.
     
  13. >Front page report in our local paper last week (Bucks Free Press - High Wycombe edition) or the
    >week before was that accidents and injuries had risen at sites where speed cameras have been
    >installed in the last 3 or 4 years.

    Yet here in Norfolk, it made the press that here, accidents had reduced a lot.

    From www.edp24.co.uk with url http://tinyurl.com/64as

    "Speed cameras' effect on drink-driving

    ROWAN ENTWISTLE

    February 12, 2003 07:18

    The number of people killed or seriously injured on Norfolk roads where speed cameras operate has
    fallen dramatic-ally, according to figures published last night.

    The statistics show that since the introduction of cameras on blackspot roads more than a year ago,
    there have been no deaths and a 50pc reduction in serious injuries.

    This compares with a decrease of 35pc in the num-ber of deaths and serious injuries nationally.

    However, on stretches of road where there are no cameras, Norfolk police have reported a 40pc
    increase in the number of people killed.

    Speed has been pinpointed as the major cause of the deaths which increased to 77 last year, 19 more
    than in 2001.

    Last night, Bryan Edwards, spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partner-ship, said the
    presence of the cameras was helping to educate people not to speed, but there was still a long
    way to go.

    "We want to educate people so that driving with excessive speed becomes as socially unacceptable as
    drink-driving. There are no danger-ous roads – it's the people on them who make them dangerous."

    He added: "We have now identified up to 115 areas where we will operate in the next 12 months. Five
    will be fixed cameras and the rest will be covered by the existing four mobile cameras."

    The partnership, comprising the police and health and local authorities, is part of the effort to
    meet the Govern-ment's target of reducing road deaths and serious injury accidents by 40pc by 2010.

    Mr Edwards stressed the cameras could only be set up at known sites with a history of crashes and
    fatalities. In all, there are 40 known accident blackspots around the county.

    All money raised by the partnership through speeding fines is used to pay for the existing cameras
    and to extend their use at other accident blackspots.

    Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said the figures released yesterday showed that no government
    could justify getting rid of the cameras, which have sparked anger among some motorists.

    "It is quite clear that speeding is dangerous and causes too much suffering," Mr Darling said.

    "I hope this reinforces the message that speed cameras are there to stop people speeding and make
    the roads safer."

    It is thought likely that the use of cameras across the country will be increased as a result of the
    experimental pilot scheme, conducted in eight areas of the UK.

    But the scheme's findings also showed that the number of deaths and serious injuries within 500m of
    speed cameras actually rose in some areas.

    Mr Edwards said there was no evidence of that happening in Norfolk.

    Alan Dale, of the Sensible Speeds Initiative in Norwich, said cameras did not address the problem of
    bad driving and said more police officers needed to be present to improve drivers' bad habits.

    Since the scheme was launched in Norfolk in October 2001, about 27,000 motorists have been
    caught speeding.

    For a list of all fixed and mobile speed cameras, visit www.edp24.co.uk"

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  14. >......accidents and injuries had risen at sites where speed cameras have been installed in the last
    >3 or 4 years.

    I wonder...... How big is the area that they take to include the 'site' of the camera?

    IME drivers are very careful (no demon braking as posited by the likes of PS that I've seen) in the
    'zone' and then...ZOOM! off they go at 45mph again. Maybe *that's* when the accidents happen. The
    police should site mobile traps just after a camera and hammer all those they catch.

    Disclaimer: I'm NOT blaming the cameras or the legislation!

    BiGrab
     
  15. Russ P

    Russ P Guest

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Front page report in our local paper last week (Bucks Free Press - High Wycombe edition) or the
    > >week before was that accidents and injuries had risen at sites where speed cameras have been
    > >installed in the last 3 or 4 years.
    >
    > Yet here in Norfolk, it made the press that here, accidents had reduced a
    lot.
    >

    No - sorry not phrased very well - the problem in the Thames Valley is where cameras have been
    installed in the last 3 or 4 years where they weren't there before that that accidents have risen -
    it's contrary to the national trend and quite contrary to what you'd expect which is what made me
    think of Guy and Paul.

    Oxford Times today had a similar report with a load of graphs which looked like they'd come right
    out of the safespeed site !!! They clearly showed (overall) accidents rapidly falling until cameras
    were introduced at which point they became pretty constant. More to do with the reduction in
    policing rather than anything intrinsic in cameras I suspect but does rather arm those that might
    suggest that Gatso's do little for ACTUAL road safety but are good revenue generators.

    Even more worrying however was that the accidents withing 200yds of the cameras had risen after the
    cameras were erected. Again this effect only applied to the Thames Valley apparently. It wasn't even
    an anti Gatso piece. They went to great lengths to defend them in spite of the statistics and
    headlines but weren't very convincing.

    Russ (hopefully got the name right this time)
     
  16. Russ P

    Russ P Guest

    "Robert McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >......accidents and injuries had risen at sites where speed cameras have been installed in the
    > >last 3 or
    4
    > > years.
    >
    > I wonder...... How big is the area that they take to include the 'site' of the camera?

    200m either side - so it would appear to be people paying too much attention to the camera and their
    speedo and too little to the road.

    Russ
     
  17. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:45:11 -0000, "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Does anyone know of any studies that determine the effect that home delivery has on traffic and the
    >environment? There's an argument that home delivery increases traffic because every store sends its
    >own 'man in a van' to deliver to the customer whereas when people actually go shopping they often
    >consolidate several stores into a single trip.

    In our case my wife walks to Waitrose, selects the goods, and if there's too much to go in her
    shopping basket on wheels she has them deliver it. Therefore the existence of the home delivery
    service has resulted in a 100% reduction of journeys to Waitrose by car, in our household.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  18. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:21:54 -0000, "Russ P" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> How big is the area that they take to include the 'site' of the camera?

    >200m either side - so it would appear to be people paying too much attention to the camera and
    >their speedo and too little to the road.

    Don't forget to bame the camera, not the clueless arsehole in the car, though ;-)

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  19. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:11:17 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>> How big is the area that they take to include the 'site' of the camera?

    >>200m either side - so it would appear to be people paying too much attention to the camera and
    >>their speedo and too little to the road.

    >Don't forget to bame the camera, not the clueless arsehole in the car, though ;-)

    Cameras and the policies which support them (and are caused by them) make clueless arseholes. You
    did understand that bit didn't you?
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email promoting
    intelligent road safety
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:20:08 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Cameras and the policies which support them (and are caused by them) make clueless arseholes. You
    >did understand that bit didn't you?

    Is the wrong answer. A box by the side of the road does not change the nature of the nut behind the
    wheel. They will be just as clueless, just as much of an arsehole, without the camera.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...