Google analytics

Monday, 9 August 2010

My Wanker of the week.


Andy Giannasi, the member of ACPO who has been designated the 'lead' in road's policing has decried the wind down of 'Safety' Cameras.


Figures made available by SafeSpeed show an impressive 35% decrease in deaths from 1978 to 1988. The spiraling number of deaths continued to decrease during the pre speed camera years until cameras were introduced in the early to mid 1990's. In fact, since the mid 1990's the number of deaths has stayed about the same which is proof, over a 10 year period, that speed cameras do not save lives. If planting 5000 cameras on the streets and issuing over 7 million fines since 1992 really worked then we would have seen the number of road deaths continue to fall, but they've just stayed the same. The question is, why haven't fatalities continued to decrease since cameras were introduced?

Comment: The finger of blame is clearly pointing at the cameras and those who support them. If it weren't for advances in vehicle safety design and medical treatment then casualties would have increased considerably since cameras were introduced.

Less than 4% of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit according to new data (page 41) published by the Department of Transport. This destroys the government's claim that 1/3 of accidents are speed related. The facts publicised by Safespeed shows the breakdown of the causes of accidents from 13 police forces from 2001:

Cause of Accident
% of Accidents


Failure to judge other person's path or speed:

Looked but did not see:

Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless:

Failed to look:

Lack of judgment of own path:

Excessive speed:

Utter Tosh from this ACPO indoctrinated Tosser. It would be a lot safer to have more traffic police on our roads to catch those who are under the influence of drink/drugs, driving badly, no licence, no insurance, driving badly maintained cars, etc.

Note: Then again it would be even better if we had any type of Policeman on our streets.

1 comment:

  1. Er, add all those percentages up and you get 129%. Who taught him to do sums? My Dog can do better.

    Oh and where's the figures for drunk / drug influenced drivers in all that? Or does he need another 100% of all RTA's to include those?


Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.