Letter in local paper - Speedophiles



Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter Fox

Guest
Great new word.

From the Colchester Evening Gazette, Sept 4, 2003 Put speedophiles on a national drive register

THOUGH I applaud the launch of your campaign to reduce road deaths, I feel that unless particular
central issues are addressed, the campaign will fail. Bad driving and, in particular, speeding are
the result of a number of influences, such as masculinity, lack or respect for other citizens and a
reticence on the part of society to castigate such crimes as criminal. One only has to look at the
lenient punishments meted out to drink-drivers, even where deaths are involved. If you flew on a
commercial airline with a drunken pilot, or a pilot who chatted on their mobile phone or ate a bag
of chips from their lap, we could rightly expect them to be permanently banned from flying. Yet, the
moment the police target such crimes on our roads, there is an outcry that they should be tackling
more serious offences. What could be more serious than the potential loss of life or serious injury?
Those who speed are a greater risk to our society than paedophiles and they certainly kill and maim
far more children. There should be a national register for those who commit serious and repeated
driving offences and there should be lifelong bans imposed on serial offenders. Further, there needs
to be a Government initiative to stigmatise and shame bad drivers. Until society sees speedophiles
and bad drivers as criminals, until bad drivers take responsibility for their actions and act with
respect to society around them, deaths on the road will continue to rise.

N Elwood, Heath Road, Wivenhoe.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded

Witham Cycling Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm East Anglian Pub cycle rides
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides
 
"Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Great new word.

A heartwarming letter. Expect the "speeding isn't really dangerous, it's the cameras that are the
problem" brigade to wade in with their ususal bovine excrement.

Have you forwarded this to the CTC?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
Peter Fox wrote:
> If you flew on a commercial airline with a drunken pilot, or a pilot who chatted on their mobile
> phone or ate a bag of chips from their lap, we could rightly expect them to be permanently
> banned from flying.
>

Except airline pilots regularly eat a full meal from their lap in their pilots seat, and chat on the
"mobile" to air traffic control - especially at critical times like take off and landing ;-)

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain .
 
Peter Fox wrote:
> Great new word.
>
> From the Colchester Evening Gazette, Sept 4, 2003 Put speedophiles on a national drive register
>
> If you flew on a commercial airline with a drunken pilot, or a pilot who chatted on their mobile
> phone or ate a bag of chips from their lap, we could rightly expect them to be permanently banned
> from flying.

I work with someone who used to be a head stewardess for Quantas, she has plenty of interesting
anecdotes about pilots reeking of alcohol who stay awake for take off and landing and sleep off
their hangovers on the flight. Fortunately there are generally two steering wheels on a plane and
another pilot in the form of the first officer.
 
Peter Fox wrote:
> Great new word.
>
> From the Colchester Evening Gazette, Sept 4, 2003 Put speedophiles on a national drive register
>
> If you flew on a commercial airline with a drunken pilot, or a pilot who chatted on their mobile
> phone or ate a bag of chips from their lap, we could rightly expect them to be permanently banned
> from flying.

I work with someone who used to be a head stewardess for Quantas, she has plenty of interesting
anecdotes about pilots reeking of alcohol who stay awake for take off and landing and sleep off
their hangovers on the flight. Fortunately there are generally two steering wheels on a plane and
another pilot in the form of the first officer.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Except airline pilots regularly eat a full meal from their lap in their pilots seat, and chat on
> the "mobile" to air traffic control - especially
at
> critical times like take off and landing ;-)

Unlikely to be using "the mobile" from commencement of roll-out until some height is gained,
likewise during touch-down. These key stages require full concentration. With auto-pilot and two
officers on board eating isn't an issue.

In clear weather maintaining height and elevation in a light aircraft without auto pilot presents a
far smaller workload than driving a car down a busy urban road, eg a typical commute. This is mainly
due to seperation.

My daughter learned to fly a glider at 14 but stated that learning to drive a car at 18 is more
difficult!

In short I'd say the OP
 
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:54:12 +0100, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> From the Colchester Evening Gazette, Sept 4, 2003 Put speedophiles on a national drive register ..

I hope they're serious! I remember once writing a letter to a local newspaper advocating the death
penalty for parking offences, and reading the letter, I wasn't sure whether it wasn't something of
the same kind.

Pete Barrett
 
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:23:15 +0100 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>Except airline pilots regularly eat a full meal from their lap in their pilots seat,

Not while flying the aeroplane.

>and chat on the "mobile" to air traffic control - especially at critical times like take off and
>landing ;-)

They get clearance to take off and land. When they have this they do not chat to anyone.

--
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.
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:23:15 +0100 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
>> Except airline pilots regularly eat a full meal from their lap in their pilots seat,
>
> Not while flying the aeroplane.
>

Wanna bet?

>
> They get clearance to take off and land. When they have this they do not chat to anyone.

That's funny, I wonder who all those pilots I've listened to were talking to during take off and
landing then

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain
 
theres actually no need for pilots, on a recent flight out to corfu upon landing the pilot said that the whole journey was done by the auto pliot- take off and landing aswell, it communicatesd with the ATC tower and does it all, pilots are only there so we get on the planes and in case of emergency! would you get on a plane knowing it was all automated? it would have meant 9/11 wouldnt have happened!

thauts my 2c anyway
 
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:23:15 +0100, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Peter Fox wrote:
>> If you flew on a commercial airline with a drunken pilot, or a pilot who chatted on their
>> mobile phone or ate a bag of chips from their lap, we could rightly expect them to be
>> permanently banned from flying.
>>
>
>Except airline pilots regularly eat a full meal from their lap in their pilots seat, and chat on
>the "mobile" to air traffic control - especially at critical times like take off and landing ;-)
>
>Tony

S'funny, last time I was cycling @ 38,000 ft I never noticed any bad piloting... Mind you, it *was*
rush hour and the planes were all nose to tail in traffic, so they weren't in much of a position to
give me any trouble.

Even so, some rotten git had already had all their wing mirrors off!

Gary
;)

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------
 
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:15:13 +0100 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>>> Except airline pilots regularly eat a full meal from their lap in their pilots seat,
>>
>> Not while flying the aeroplane.
>
>Wanna bet?

I do not bet.

However, you will find that there is an autopilot which is perfectly capable of flying the
aeroplane while the pilots eat, read a book, do the knitting and the other things that they do for
most of the flight.

>> They get clearance to take off and land. When they have this they do not chat to anyone.
>
>That's funny, I wonder who all those pilots I've listened to were talking to during take off and
>landing then

You did not hear the person flying the plane talking.

--
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.
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:15:13 +0100 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
>
> You did not hear the person flying the plane talking.

Funny, I don't remember you being there at the time

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain
 
On 6 Sep 2003 08:44:00 +0950 someone who may be dailuggs <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>theres actually no need for pilots, on a recent flight out to corfu upon landing the pilot said
>that the whole journey was done by the auto pliot- take off and landing aswell,

ISTR that such things date from the 1960s when the military developed them as a way of recovering
aircraft to aircraft carriers even if the pilot was injured.

>would you get on a plane knowing it was all automated? it would have meant 9/11 wouldnt have
>happened!

No, it would have happened in a different way.

Anyway automatic operation is not infallible. An example is a train crash near San Francisco in
the early 1970s. Approaching a terminus a train was given an instruction to coast along the
platform at restricted speed. The train had not been maintained properly and interpreted the
instruction as an instruction to accelerate to maximum speed, which it did until it crashed
through the end of the line.

--
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.
 
David Hansen wrote:
>
> ISTR that such things date from the 1960s when the military developed them as a way of recovering
> aircraft to aircraft carriers even if the pilot was injured.
>

The first scheduled service aircraft to land fully automatically was a BEA Trident at Heathrow in
1965 using a Smiths Autoland system. In 1966 one made the first automatic landing in anger at
Heathrow in 50yds visibility when everything else was grounded Even in the '90's when it got foggy
at Heathrow BA would often roll out the old Tridents and keep the Boeings in the hangars :-(

>
> Anyway automatic operation is not infallible. An example is a train crash near San Francisco in
> the early 1970s. Approaching a terminus a train was given an instruction to coast along the
> platform at restricted speed. The train had not been maintained properly and interpreted the
> instruction as an instruction to accelerate to maximum speed, which it did until it crashed
> through the end of the line.

Its a damn site less fallible than humans. 80% of air accidents are due to human error, 20% to
mechanical or system failure. Ergo automatic operation is safer than manual although people don't
like the thought of having no-one up front.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain
 
Originally posted by David Hansen
On 6 Sep 2003 08:44:00 +0950 someone who may be dailuggs <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>theres actually no need for pilots, on a recent flight out to corfu upon landing the pilot said
>that the whole journey was done by the auto pliot- take off and landing aswell,

ISTR that such things date from the 1960s when the military developed them as a way of recovering
aircraft to aircraft carriers even if the pilot was injured.

>would you get on a plane knowing it was all automated? it would have meant 9/11 wouldnt have
>happened!

No, it would have happened in a different way.

Anyway automatic operation is not infallible. An example is a train crash near San Francisco in
the early 1970s. Approaching a terminus a train was given an instruction to coast along the
platform at restricted speed. The train had not been maintained properly and interpreted the
instruction as an instruction to accelerate to maximum speed, which it did until it crashed
through the end of the line.

--
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.

although the technology has developed a lot since the 70's

recently a pilot crashed at an airshow while trying to show off, autopilot was not on but active in the sence that it told him to pull up on several occasions because he was descending at too steep an angle, he turned it off and guess what ... he crashed!

personally id put my faith in technology- it cant fall asleep, be drunk, be playing with its mobile.


on another note i really hate the oil companiesd becuase there is no nead for petrol- the electric car has been around for ages and if it had of been introduced when it was first developed it would now be upto decent speeds for the speed freaks to enjoy- but the likes of esso have majot political influences and so it aint gonna be around on a massive scale for a while.
 
On 8 Sep 2003 05:28:29 +0950, dailuggs <[email protected]> wrote:

> personally id put my faith in technology- it cant fall asleep, be drunk, be playing with its
> mobile.

Except that requires putting your faith in programmers. At least the pilot (most of the time) has a
personal interest in not hitting the ground - the programmer is probably thousands of miles away,
tucked up in bed. It's not just idle speculation - as anyone that knows what a boeing chinook fadec
is can tell you (cue Paul McCartney song).

On the bright side, Microsoft has mostly stayed out of embedded systems. Sadly, it probably
won't last.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 8 Sep 2003 05:28:29 +0950, dailuggs <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> Except that requires putting your faith in programmers. At least the pilot (most of the time) has
> a personal interest in not hitting the ground - the programmer is probably thousands of miles
> away, tucked up in bed. It's not just idle speculation - as anyone that knows what a boeing
> chinook fadec is can tell you (cue Paul McCartney song).
>

Yes but they only have to get it right once, pilots have to get it right every time.

> On the bright side, Microsoft has mostly stayed out of embedded systems. Sadly, it probably
> won't last.
>

Queue Bill Gates comment that "if GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has,
we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." To which Lee Iacocca
responded "If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars which, for no
reason whatsoever, would crash twice a day."

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain
 
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:08:44 +0100 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>> Anyway automatic operation is not infallible.
>
>Its a damn site less fallible than humans.

Yes and no.

What happens with automatic systems is that the responsibility passes from those directly involved
to those indirectly involved. Instead of relying on drivers one relies on maintenance staff and
programmers.

There is also the problem of what to do when the automatic system fails. The general means of doing
so is for the driver to drive, but this is a problem if the driver has lost their skills due to not
exercising them enough. A way to avoid this is to make the driver drive manually at times, for
example on the Central Line in London the idea was (I assume that it has been implemented) for
automatic operation only to take place in the peak periods when it is essential to run the service
as smoothly as possible. Outside these ours drivers drive, under the supervision of the automatic
system, to ensure that they keep their skills.

--
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.
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:08:44 +0100 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
>>> Anyway automatic operation is not infallible.
>>
>> Its a damn site less fallible than humans.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> What happens with automatic systems is that the responsibility passes from those directly involved
> to those indirectly involved. Instead of relying on drivers one relies on maintenance staff and
> programmers.
>
> There is also the problem of what to do when the automatic system fails. The general means of
> doing so is for the driver to drive, but this is a problem if the driver has lost their skills due
> to not exercising them enough. A way to avoid this is to make the driver drive manually at times,
> for example on the Central Line in London the idea was (I assume that it has been implemented) for
> automatic operation only to take place in the peak periods when it is essential to run the service
> as smoothly as possible. Outside these ours drivers drive, under the supervision of the automatic
> system, to ensure that they keep their skills.

Still ignoring the fact that 80% of air accidents are due to pilot error I see ;-)

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Replies
21
Views
434
J
S
Replies
0
Views
702
S
S
Replies
1
Views
665
T
S
Replies
41
Views
2K
P
S
Replies
0
Views
239
S
S
Replies
89
Views
1K
A
S
Replies
16
Views
408
UK and Europe
Jeremy Parker
J
S
Replies
3
Views
349
P