Ladyman and drink and bells



So Ladyman, the Government's Transport Minister, thinks that a lower
level of drink while driving is not necessarily likely to lead to more
safety on the roads. He does, however, think that insisting that
bikes have a bell *is*.
Who voted for this cretin?
What can be done to get him to start taking his daily cleverness pill
again?
 
[email protected] wrote:
> So Ladyman, the Government's Transport Minister, thinks that a lower
> level of drink while driving is not necessarily likely to lead to more
> safety on the roads. He does, however, think that insisting that
> bikes have a bell *is*.
> Who voted for this cretin?
> What can be done to get him to start taking his daily cleverness pill
> again?



Comment
The ageing boy racer should restore credibility
by issuing tough road death reduction targets
Ladyman to duck
road safety issues
to please car lobby

by Ben Webster

Why did Tony Blair appoint an ageing boy racer as Road Safety Minister?

With annual road deaths hovering stubbornly between 3,200 and 3,600 for

the past decade, surely it was inappropriate to select a man with a
passion for sports cars and super bikes capable of 160mph.
Perhaps the Prime Minister did not realise that Stephen Ladyman had
been
caught speeding not once, or even twice, but three times. According to
Richard Brunstrom, chief constable of North Wales, "anyone who gets
caught speeding three times is a dangerous criminal".
Blair could not have remained in ignorance for long because one of
Ladyman's first acts as minister was to book an appointment on Top
Gear,
where he boasted to Jeremy Clarkson about having been one flash away
from an automatic six-month driving ban.
He also attacked cameras at the bottom of hills as "sneaky" and
unashamedly admitted he had a GPS camera detector in his car. The only
reason for having a detector is to be able to break the speed limit
with
impunity.
Of course, Ladyman was obliged, after zooming round Clarkson's test
track, to spend a couple of minutes on the sofa defending the
Government's speed camera policy. But behind the scenes he was
planning
changes which would warm the coils of every petrolhead's heart.
After blocking the installation of any new cameras for nine months,
Ladyman announced sweeping reforms to the funding system for camera
partnerships.
This was a stroke of political genius. By abolishing hypothecation of
camera fines and giving local authorities an overall road safety
budget,
he simultaneously quashed the idea that cameras were revenue raising
devices and dumped responsibility for speed enforcement policy on
police
and local councillors.
While publicly adhering to the line that cameras saved lives, Ladyman
left partnerships facing an uncertain future. He might argue that the
public is clamouring for the partnerships to be reined in, but that
would indicate he is spending too much time with the likes of Clarkson.
The camera debate is dominated by a vociferous minority of drivers who
believe they, not the government, should be allowed to determine what
is
a safe speed. Most people, even most drivers, are strongly in favour of

cameras and want more of them. Even the AA, in a recent survey, found
69% support for cameras.
While working hard to keep his four-wheeled friends happy, Ladyman has
also found time to promote the interests of fellow born-again bikers.
He
wants to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes, where they will intimidate

cyclists and skittle pedestrians trying to cross through lines of
queuing traffic.
By allowing motorcyclists to dodge queues, Ladyman will encourage more
people to buy motorbikes and send road deaths in the wrong direction.
There are already too many 50-something men coping with their mid-life
crisis by inexpertly riding superbikes at weekends.
Per mile travelled, a motorcyclist is 40 times more likely to be killed

than a car passenger. Even cycling is three times safer than riding a
motorbike.
Ladyman, 54, has an opportunity this month to redeem himself by
supporting European plans to harmonise drink drive laws and introduce
speed limiters on cars. But the omens are not good. The DfT has already

intervened to delete references to these measures in a statement due to

be agreed by EU transport ministers in Brussels.
Ladyman could also restore credibility in the Government's road
safety
policy by issuing tough new casualty reduction targets. The existing
2010 ones are only likely to be achieved because the DfT chose the soft

option of reducing deaths and serious injuries rather than just deaths.

There is wiggle room in the definition of serious injury but you cannot

argue with a death.
Is there any good reason why a greater risk of death should be
tolerated
on roads than on railways? If both had the same death rate, fewer than
1000 people would be killed on roads each year.

Ben Webster is Transport Correspondent of The Times
 
[email protected] wrote:
> So Ladyman, the Government's Transport Minister, thinks that a lower
> level of drink while driving is not necessarily likely to lead to more
> safety on the roads.


Do you have good reason to believe otherwise?

The results of the 2006 summer drink drive campaign in England and Wales
[1] show that motorists tested following a traffic collision were less
likely (6%) to be over the limit than motorists tested for all reasons
(10%).

Another way to look at the summer statistics is that drivers within the
limit were responsible for 94% of all collisions whereas only 6% of
collisions were caused by drivers above the limit. Which group do you
think is the safest? ;-)

[1]
http://www.acpo.police.uk/pressrelease.asp?PR_GUID={981A8B89-E8D6-4C7F-AA6A-67F4ACBCDCAD}

--
Matt B
 
"Do you have good reason to believe otherwise"

Yep, unless you are arguing that alcohol consumption improves driving
skills.
 
spindrift wrote:
> "Do you have good reason to believe otherwise"
>
> Yep, unless you are arguing that alcohol consumption improves driving
> skills.


Did you look at the findings wrt to the summer drink drive campaign on
the ACPO website? 6% of collisions involved drivers over the limit, 94%
of collisions (nearly 16 times as many) involved drivers under the
limit. 9.4% of drivers stopped in general were over the limit, if 6% of
those involved in collisions were over the limit then about 10% of those
stopped but who were /not/ involved in any collision were over the limit.

The data surely speaks for itself.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:
> The results of the 2006 summer drink drive campaign in England and Wales
> [1] show that motorists tested following a traffic collision were less
> likely (6%) to be over the limit than motorists tested for all reasons
> (10%).


So? The sample of "motorists tested for all reasons" is not a random and
almost certainly not a representative one.

> Another way to look at the summer statistics is that drivers within the
> limit were responsible for 94% of all collisions whereas only 6% of
> collisions were caused by drivers above the limit. Which group do you
> think is the safest? ;-)


You're going to have to do much better than that.

The 6% statistic is meaningless in isolation. Do you know what
proportion of drivers on the roads were over the limit? Also, what
proportion of the drivers under the limit were under the influence of
alcohol (this being directly relevant to the OP's point)?

> http://www.acpo.police.uk/pressrelease.asp?PR_GUID={981A8B89-E8D6-4C7F-AA6A-67F4ACBCDCAD}


This link currently gives me a server error.

Anthony
 
Anthony Jones wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> The results of the 2006 summer drink drive campaign in England and
>> Wales [1] show that motorists tested following a traffic collision
>> were less likely (6%) to be over the limit than motorists tested for
>> all reasons (10%).

>
> So? The sample of "motorists tested for all reasons" is not a random and
> almost certainly not a representative one.


Precisely.

>> Another way to look at the summer statistics is that drivers within
>> the limit were responsible for 94% of all collisions whereas only 6%
>> of collisions were caused by drivers above the limit. Which group do
>> you think is the safest? ;-)

>
> You're going to have to do much better than that.
>
> The 6% statistic is meaningless in isolation.


> Do you know what proportion of drivers on the roads were over the limit?


No, do you? Based on the pattern in the ACPO data the best guess we can
make is that it has got to be over 10%.

If we said that 94% of drivers who were involved in collisions were also
speeding and that 90% of drivers stopped for driving erratically, though
not involved in a collision, were also speeding, we would assume that
the less the proportion of speeders in the group the safer the driving
was. Does not the same logic apply when the measure is "proportion
under the blood-alcohol limit" rather than "proportion speeding"?

> Also, what
> proportion of the drivers under the limit were under the influence of
> alcohol (this being directly relevant to the OP's point)?


Has the research ever been done?

>> http://www.acpo.police.uk/pressrelease.asp?PR_GUID={981A8B89-E8D6-4C7F-AA6A-67F4ACBCDCAD}

>
> This link currently gives me a server error.


Supply the closing brace, or try this: http://tinyurl.com/q5332

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:
>> Do you know what proportion of drivers on the roads were over the limit?

>
> No, do you? Based on the pattern in the ACPO data the best guess we can
> make is that it has got to be over 10%.


I'm not even going to ask for your reasoning. Perhaps you should write a
book: "How to Troll with Statistics"?

Anthony
 
Why doesn't Ladyman ride a bicycle?

Becasue dope peddling is illegal!
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> So Ladyman, the Government's Transport Minister, thinks that a lower
>> level of drink while driving is not necessarily likely to lead to more
>> safety on the roads.

>
> Do you have good reason to believe otherwise?
>
> The results of the 2006 summer drink drive campaign in England and Wales
> [1] show that motorists tested following a traffic collision were less
> likely (6%) to be over the limit than motorists tested for all reasons
> (10%).
>
> Another way to look at the summer statistics is that drivers within the
> limit were responsible for 94% of all collisions whereas only 6% of
> collisions were caused by drivers above the limit. Which group do you
> think is the safest? ;-)
>
> [1]
> http://www.acpo.police.uk/pressrelease.asp?PR_GUID={981A8B89-E8D6-4C7F-AA6A-67F4ACBCDCAD}
>
> --
> Matt B


What was the typical mileage of the drivers over the limit compared to those
under the limit?

If the people who drink and drive are travelling much shorter distances in
general than those who don't then it is not really surprising that more
accidents occur in drivers under the limit. After all, the longer the
journey time the more likely you are to be involved in an incident.
 
David Martin wrote:

> Now, why would a motorist be breath tested?


Because it's a simple paperwork-free suss law that provides a cast-iron
excuse to stop and eyeball-search any vehicle, any time.

I've never been breathalysed anywhere near closing time or obviously
exiting from a pub. Every time I've been bagged it has been for the
heinous crime of driving anywhere in the small hours of the early
morning (in such well-known hotbeds of crime as Brixton, St Pauls and
Portmeirion).