Hitler in the 21st century

Noone's saying that it should be. Let's leave aside the official mantra for a minute and apply some common sense. "Safe speed for the conditions" should be a speed where you are in control of your car at all times and can respond to foreseeable danger in a timely manner. Put another way, a speed in which you pose little risk to yourself and other road-users. Do you agree with that?I'm in no way suggesting making up your own rules. I'm simply suggesting use of common sense and analytical thinking instead of some blind, robotic adherence to generic, blanket-coverage limits imposed by semi-autonomous, unaccountable organisations with financial & political motivation. But they don't, that's the whole point! All they do is bombard you with statistics about how many people die if they get hit at 40mph, how many at 30mph, etc. Read the story.They show you how other people put themselves in harm's way but not how driving at 30mph makes you more likely to cause an accident than driving at 20 mph. They try to make you feel guilty and shame you into compliance. They are concentration camps for the mind, modern-day Hitler Youth camps where you are taught to give up thinking and blindly obey the signs!As you can see in the link above the majority of the offenders clearly aren't speed-mad, self-centred maniacs with no regard with human life, they are decent, law-abiding people who just happened, once in their lifetime, to marginally exceed the speed limit. They shouldn't be demonized and made to feel guilty and ashamed and forced to spend the rest of their driving life with their eyes on the speedometer instead of the road.The government is inventing ways of criminalising people. See if you're a criminal, or made to feel like one, you have less credibility, it's harder to argue when measures are taken against you. If you've broken the speed limit then you can't seriously object to new, lower speed limits, right? Also, since you obviously have a tendency to disregard the law you don't have much ground for opposing, say, the new internment laws the government's proposing. After all, you would, wouldn't you? you're a criminal! On a more practical level, as a criminal you're also easier to track and control (re: my previous post on DNA sampling when arrested). The people who aren't criminals yet, live in fear of becoming one -as it's so easy- so they're much more compliant and obedient. For the establishment it's a win-win situation.Drivers are punished for something that may or may not happen, even if it's not a result of their actions, in the future. What next ? Are we going to have Tom Cruise crashing through our window and arresting us on suspicion of future crimes ?The only reason given for this is that you're less likely to kill someone at 20mph than you are at 30 mph. You're practically guaranteed not to kill someone at 0mph. So why don't we confiscate all cars and ban all drivers? To take it one step further, if you're locked away in a cell for life you can't kill anyone, can you ? Or just to make absolutely, positively, sure why don't we just execute drivers who we suspect might accidentally kill someone?That's what I mean by the slippery slope of self-righteous justification. The difference between our society and Nazi Germany is that we are (for now) two steps removed from that 'final solution'. I'm sorry about your mother. I appreciate that this is an emotive subject for you.Drivers who kill others by dangerous or reckless driving (regardless of whether the driver was over or under the speed limit) should have the book thrown at them, they deserve everything they get.Drivers who are involved in accidents where someone is killed through no fault of the driver (regardless of whether the driver was 5mph over the speed limit or not) should be given counselling and sent home to get on with their lives, not demonized and used as an excuse to punish all others and raise government coffers.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

If you read back through my posts you should be able to see that comparisons to Nazi Germany are quite obvious and trends which echo Nazi Germany shouldn't be dismissed as 'silly'. It should also be obvious that the methodology employed (surrendering individual responsibility to the state, rallying around 'holy' causes that require relinquishing certain freedoms) is the same today as it was back then.I could write a whole essay on this but I'll try to be succinct using the speeding case in point :
if someone wants to drive at a ridiculously low speed because they feel morally responsible for other people's behaviour or because they feel it is the 'right thing to do', that's fine. I don't agree with it but I'm not going to stand in their way. If however someone tries to force me to drive at a ridiculously low speed because they think I should feel morally responsible for other people's behaviour or because they feel it is the 'right thing' for me to do then that is fascism. Granted, it's a small and relatively harmless act of fascism, but an act of fascism nevertheless. And if people can get away with small acts of fascism you can bet they're going to get away with the big ones.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Yavol, mein Fhrer!!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

why stop at that ? why not just imprison drivers? that would ensure they can't kill anyone regardless of whose fault it might be. If it saves one life wouldn't it be worth it?See, the line between common sense and politically-correct absurdity has already been crossed and noone knows where it's now going to stop.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

But Hitler didn't disband Parliament and assumed dictatorial powers! He asked the people for them in a referendum and they gave them to him with an 85% approval rate!

​

Ringo writes:

​

And when that happens in Britain, you'll have a parallel - not before.

---

....?? Are you deliberately obfuscating now? Isn't that what I've been claiming all along ? That the British public are giving up their rights and freedoms in the cause of some self-righteous movements? That we elected this government that imposes those measures? That the majority don't object ? (it's a rhetorical question - the answer's yes!)No-one in Britain is forcibly assuming dictatorial powers and imposing measures against the will of the populace. People are being conditioned to give up their liberties in the name of some holy cause. Just like in Nazi Germany. There's your parallel.You're actually agreeing with me, you're just making it sound as if you're not. Spooky. Hello...? Didn't I already mention the increase in police powers, the suspension of habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, the increased surveillance, etc, ? By our elected government...? Without protest....? (again, rhetorical questions) You're not suggesting that a German could publicly say that he admired, say, the entrepreneurial spirit of the Jews and he'd still be ok, are you? Or that he finds the courage of the Jews inspiring, without receiving a visit from the Gestapo the next day? Like you say, let's try to remain serious. Which is why I slow down when I approach an unknown bend or if I anticipate a crossing or other obstructions ahead. It's called driving at a safe speed for the conditions you're in. The problem is that speed limits in this country prescribe a much lower speed than what's necessary to go safely round a bend or ensure you can see in advance children trying to cross. There is no practical reason why speed limits should be set that low other than the ones I've mentioned, i.e. criminalisation, control and profiteering. Again, no-one's suggesting it should be left to people to make it up as they go along. I'm suggesting that the speed limits should be set to reflect the conditions of the road -not some self-righteous, PC notion of what's safe- and that they're flexible enough (or at least their enforcement is) to accommodate changing conditions. Speed limits and accompanying monitoring have been getting increasingly severe in the last decade or so. There has been change and there has been loss for the innocent, safe drivers who just want to get to their jobs and back in a timely manner without being treated like a criminal. Absolutely, agreed 100%. And would you prefer someone who operates a 6-ton digger next to you to be fully concentrated and focused on what he's doing and his surroundings or instead keeping an eye on the digger's safety manual which dictates to him at what arbitrary speed he should be moving that arm ? I've shown you freedoms that we had 10-20 years ago and now we don't. By any stretch of the English language that's not a "lack", that's a "loss"! I notice how you present a personal tragedy as "evidence" that lowering speed limits and installing speed bumps provides more benefits to society than the freedoms it takes away. I also notice that you haven't provided a single explanation as to how drivers are more likely to cause an accident at 30mph instead of, say, 20 mph on a straight, well-surfaced, well-lit road. You're just repeating the same old mantra of 'if it saves one life..'.My brother's girlfriend was stalked and threatened by a Canadian guy she met on an internet forum. I think we should start restricting and monitoring the activities of Canadian internet posters. I know it may inconvenience you slightly, but if it saves one woman from harassment it will be well worth it, don't you think ?Would lowering speed limits and installing speed bumps have saved your mother? As I don't know the circumstances I can't answer that. It would be a moot point anyway, as -to quote you- that would just be "talking woulda-shoulda-coulda".I rest my case.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

For the last time, make up your mind! Did Hitler seize power or did the German people gave it to him ? You can't have it both ways whenever it suits your argument.Once more, for the record: Hitler didn't forcibly disband the Reichstag, he turned it into a one-party arena after being democratically elected into it and appointed chancellor by the lawful president. The Nazi party in 1932 had the largest share of the popular vote. Just like the Labour government has today. Being a democratically-elected representative doesn't preclude being a fascist.Hitler didn't assume dictatorial powers. He asked for them by drafting legislation that was not only voted in by the democratically-elected parliament but also approved by 85% of the people in a referendum! He was given dictatorial powers by both parliamentary and popular consent!You're just brushing off any comparisons to Nazi Germany on the fallacious premise that Hitler somehow forced his way into power
and unlawfully disbanded the democratic institutions against the will of the people. He didn't. He was allowed to be a dictator. By a democracy!Your fallacy is just a way of alleviating concern in western countries ("another Hitler can't happen here, we have a democracy, which prevents such things from happening") while it lulls people into a false sense of security and complacency so they can sleepwalk into the arms of the next dictator, elected or not.Once again: I'm not claiming that we, as a nation, currently are on the brink of a Nazi-style regime. Nor am I claiming that our current politicians have the same motivation or drive as Hitler did. I'm claiming that we, as a people, are being subjected to the same methodologies and pressures by our political leaders as the Germans were by theirs. The holy causes have changed, so have the end-results, but the methods and attitude of people in power has sadly remained the same. There aren't going to be Nazi-style massacres of 'speeders' or people who drive SUVs anytime soon but the moral justification for it has already been put in place.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Like I said before just tune in to any radio station in Britain and count the slogans: "safety camera", "health and safety", "speed kills", "minimize carbon footprint", et al. Like Goebbels once said 'A lie, repeated often enough, gets to be accepted as the truth'. This is what conditioning and propaganda is all about.Want to see its effects: Look at every other car-related accident that happens. The first reaction of the so-called community is to ask for speed bumps and lower limits to be installed. Note that nobody even bothers to ask the basic questions like "How did the accident happen?", or "what the fuck was a 3-yr old doing out on the street without an adult around?". Ofcourse they all know that "speed kills" and "safety-cameras" -not parents- must ensure their children's safety. And as someone else needs to be blamed -and you're not allowed to blame Jews this decade- all drivers are demonized and will be penalised.All that's missing is posters on walls portraying demonic-looking drivers hiding in the shadows, ready to run over your child. But I'm sure that can't be far off now. Suspension of habeas corpus is yet another result of the same methodology : Create a problem (or seize on an existing one), condition the populace to believe that only one solution exists and then propose and implement that solution. Simple.It works with terrorism just as well as with speeding! Oh stop it! ..you're killing me...please..just stop it! Full trust in our elected representatives, right? They know best, right? You mean just like the Germans fully trusted Adolf when they elected him, right ? We know how that one turned out!
..and you spent a dozen posts telling me to stop silly comparisons with Nazi Germany?! Oh...priceless!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Yes, and 100 years ago there weren't any cars on the street so you didn't have much to worry about your 3-yr old playing outside. Now, there are 1-ton masses of metal going up and down the street and your 3-yr old will come worse-off in a collision with one of them, so why not be a responsible parent and at least keep an eye out for your child ?! LOL! I see you drank the kool-aid too! Then why road deaths haven't really gone down in the last 10 years despite the huge increase in cameras and other 'traffic-calming' measures and also despite the significant car safety improvements ?Also why do we have evidence which suggests that cameras not only do nothing to prevent accidents, they tend to cause them! You don't need to be Einstein to realise that if you drive with one eye on the speedometer you're more likely to cause an accident. Driving at 30mph on an wide, empty road on a clear day gives you as much time to see and react as driving at 20 mph. Driving at 20mph has the added effect of making you complacent and less focused. Add some speed cameras and you start keeping your eyes on the speedometer instead of on the road. Not very safe driving, IMHO. yes, that's where we're heading! Banning cars is already happening! You got to love the justification the councillor offers: "Banning cars.. will end crippling traffic jams"!!Using the same reasoning, cutting peoples heads off will stop them from getting headaches!To think that people voted such a person in a position of power... again, that's already been considered by government-sponsored commitees. I'm assuming that we all have the same rights and the same responsibilities when using the road . If I cause an accident by driving dangerously or recklessly I'd expect to be punished accordingly. If a pedestrian or cyclist cause an accident by running out in front of my car, I'd expect them to be held just as accountable. Instead I'm automatically receiving the blame just because I happen to drive a car. Why, yes, I do yearn for the presence of police officers! A lot of of them have common sense and use their brains. They will spot dangerous drivers, e.g. drivers high on drink and drugs. Traffic cameras can't spot any kind of dangerous driving as long as it's performed within the speed limit!When I used to work shifts I was stopped twice late at night by police. On both occasions I was about 7-9 miles over the 30mph speed limit. They breathalysed me, checked my details, and let me on my merry way with a warning to "..mind your speed, sir". After all, it was late at night on a clear, wide road and I was posing no risk to anyone. As long as the law enforcers are thinking human beings we have little to fear. It's when they become unthinking, conditioned human beings (or machines) that we should start to worry.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

When we stop having elections it will be too late. I'll probably be in some concentration camp for putting cardboard in the black bin or something.That's why I'm making my case now, while I still can!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

So you're advocating keeping an eye on the speedometer instead of the road?! And I thought you were all for safe driving! Guess what else gives drivers an artifical nice safe feeling that causes them to lose touch with the outside world ?
Going ........reeeeaaaaallyyyyy......slooooooooooowwwwwwwlyyyyy! well, I suppose it works if neither you, noone in your family, nor anyone else you depend on to get something done, ever have to drive through or around town! according to this councillor's reasoning that would be the head. Just like the cause of traffic jams are...cars! So you'd ban cars from cities, towns, villages and hamlets and only allow them on the motorways...You haven't thought this one through, have you ? yes, damn those drivers and their cars, damn them all to hell! I don't know why we even bother with speed cameras and not just throw the lot of them in jail and get it over with? Maybe we can force them to wear special identification, say a hubcap round the neck, so that the general public can spot the evil criminals and stay clear of them. Even better we could put them to do some forced labour -say in a razor wire fenced camp surrounded by guard towers- so that they can give something back to society before they collapse and die or the guards shoot them for sport over a glass of sherry. What do you think ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Why are you comparing to 1965? If you look at the last ten years you'll see the numbers have only been slightly falling each year. Even though 2005 was the lowest figure yet it's still only a marginal reduction from the year before and the year before that.If the low speed limits and cameras are as effective as their proponents say they are then we'd expect to see the same sharp decline in the last ten years (since these measure were proliferated) as the decades before, if not sharper. Instead, we see a decrease in the rate of pedestrian death decline. Which suggests that these measures just don't work! The report accounts for the increase in car numbers but fails to account for the huge improvements in car safety features. Nowadays, even the cheapest cars come with ABS/EBD, 4 airbags, et al. These days, it's a lot more difficult for people to die in their cars than it was 10-20 years ago.So, the rate of decline hasn't gone down as steeply as it has been in the previous decades. The theory of 'lower speed limits = fewer deaths' predicts that an increase in low speed limits, traffic cameras, et al, would cause a proportional reduction in the rate of casualties. The last ten years saw a massive increase in those speed-reducing measures but no corresponding decrease in casualty rate, on the contrary we see a slow-down of the decline rate. The fact that there even is an overall decline can more demonstrably be attributed to the car-safety improvements than any speed-lowering measures. Not even that! The majority of reckless and dangerous drivers are driving either stolen or un-registered and uninsured vehicles. The cameras have absolutely no effect on the criminals, they just help to victimise and fleece the innocent Joe Bloggs who did bother to register, tax and insure his vehicle. You should only be watching your speedometer if you think you might be exceeding the speed limit. If the speed limit imposes an artificial speed that bears no relation to the road conditions then you, the driver, have no means of gauging if you're within the speed limit or not. You know you're driving slowly but is is slow enough? As a consequence you have to keep looking at the speedometer constantly, to verify that your slowness is as slow as it should be. Which is just not safe driving. Fascists generally like to give a semblance of lawfulness to their actions. Even Hitler had to call the occasional referendum just to be seen to have the popular approval. Our government needs to be seen as listening to other people's opinions every now and then, maybe even as considering alternatives to the pre-determined path . It's all make-belief and lip-gloss, they'll do what they want in the end. Your little experiment is as much about stopping distances as it is about reaction time. If someone jumps within my stopping distance I'll be unable to miss him regardless of my speed. I can't anticipate (nor be expected to) if someone will jump out in front of my car or not which is why I shouldn't be expected to minimize my stopping distance just in case. My reactions remain the same as long as I don't drive at a ridiculously high or low speed for the conditions. If anything, my reactions become duller at artificially low speeds Only my personal experience and that of hundreds of others I've talked to. I don't know if there are any independent studies on this, after all it's a common-sensical thing to do, but I'll have a look and if I find any I'll be happy to share. I, personally, find that when forced to drive at a speed that's much too slow for the conditions I get lulled into an artificial sense of security (I mean what can happen, I'm going so slow) and become less aware of my environment. I also find that I need to be checking the speedometer every 5 seconds to verify that I haven't drifted a couple of miles over. You can easily sense when you're doing 40 instead of 30, but it's not easy to tell if you're at 23 instead of 20 without looking at the speedo.It's late and I have to go. I'll address the rest of your points tomorrow.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I'm implying that in most cases going 5 mph over the speed limit is absolutely fine coz it's absolutely safe. A lot of police officers realise that and are willing to forgive such indiscretions. Traffic cameras cannot make such judgements. If I have a police car behind me who I know are out to get their daily quota instead of looking out for signs of dangerous driving, then yes I will be watching my speedometer as much as I would in the presence of traffic cameras. Luckily not all our police has been zombified yet. And as long as the speed limit is set to reflect the conditions of the road instead of some politically-correct notion of how fast I should be moving then I'm very happy with that statement. In this specific instance I don't know and frankly I don't care. The point here is that they decided to ban cars to get rid of traffic jams! How long before they decide to ban money in order to get rid of inflation?!As with all crusades / jihads I'd be very surprised if any critical thinking and objective analysis had taken place before they decided to take such measures.

quote:

---

quote:

---

make all cars have speed regulators to the max speed limit ,

---

​

Legend writes:

​

again, that's already been considered by government-sponsored commitees.

​

Jaderis writes:

​

Why not? That wouldn't affect the areas with 30mph limits because the max speed would be determined by highway limits, no?

---

The practicalities of it are irrelevant. The fact that such a totalitarian measure is even being considered should be ringing alarm bells in persons who still think they live in a free country!! Modulous has already addressed that. In this country, as long as you drive a car you're always guilty. It's up to the police's discretion to choose not to bring a case against you. That still won't stop any civil action suits coming your way from the parents of that 12 yr old kid, high on glue and cheap cider who ran out in front of your car. Now, here's a double-edged statement that's widely used by the self-righteous lobby. As long as it means what it says I have no serious problem with it apart from the fact that I think we all (should) have the same responsibility for our actions, regardless of whteher we're wielding a rolling pin or an M16.However, I often find that people who say this really mean: "The person driving the car does have less rights because they are the ones driving what amounts to a weapon".I could kill someone by accidentally throwing my 15 pound dumbell weights out of the window. When I train it's my responsibility to ensure the weights are screwed on tightly. I'm using what amounts to a small weapon. Does this mean that I shouldn't be allowed to move my arms over a certain speed, just in case ? Should I be restricted to only train in the cellar where no windows are present?Am I responsible to ensure my dumbells don't kill someone? Sure I am.
Should I be held accountable if they do? Certainly.
Should my right to use dumbells as I see fit be taken away or severely restricted because of the potential to cause an accident? Absolutely, positively, not! And I never disputed that. Like I said I was posing no risk to anyone. Other road users certainly posed a risk to me. There is no hurry, just my right to move from A to B -in a safe, responsible manner- without being watched, impeded or otherwise harassed.I've been working at the same place for the last 6 years now. When I first started it used to take me 30 mins (on average) to drive there and another 30 mins to drive back. Now, due to the various 'traffic calming' measures in my area and my work's area it takes me 43 mins (on average) each way. That's 26 mins extra every working day. That's 2hrs 10mins every working week. In a 44-working-week year, that's approx 96hrs, i.e. 4 days. So, I spend 4 extra days every year in my car. As much as I like my car I'd rather spend this time with my family and friends.I have another 26 years until I can retire. Assuming that 'traffic-calming' measures don't get worse (as if..), in my lifetime I'd be spending an extra 104 days in my car. That's 3 1/2 months. And I'm not even taking into account non work-related driving.Let's think about this for a minute: I'm going to have to spend at least an extra 3 1/2 months of my life, trapped in a little metal cage, because of my theoretical potential to cause an accident. Someone is taking time out of my life, just in case I run someone over, regardless of whose fault that might be.I hope that makes things clearer.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Ok, maybe I phrased that badly. I was alluding to the fact that you/the stats office were presenting this as the lowest figures since 1965, which is technically correct but misleading wrt to this topic as the measures we're talking about only were introduced and proliferated in the last ten years or so, so this is the interval we should be focusing on. Following on from your reasoning, as there has been a major application of 'traffic-safety' measures in the last decade we'd
expect to see a further sharp drop in the casualty rates. However, we don't see such a thing. The rate is flat-lining instead. These measures just don't produce the desired result.We have solid, indisputable evidence that car-safety features like ABS, airbags, etc. do reduce the number of casualties. Therefore, we can safely attribute some of the decline in casualty rate to these features. We have nowhere near the quality and quantity of similar evidence for measures like speed bumps, cameras, etc. As you can see from the table below( taken from the Safe Speed site and quoting from there),

quote:

---

if speed cameras worked and "some other factor" caused the loss of trend it would have to be absolutely enormous to account for the difference between the blue line (possible camera benefit) and the red (actual data)

---

. I don't think the increase in casualties caused by cameras is big enough to justify the plateau. The only way to find out would be to completely remove the cameras, Which the government has no intention of doing. We certainly haven't hit a plateau in technology and new laws in the UK! In the last ten years speed limits have been decreasing at great rates, speed cameras of increasing effectiveness have multiplied ten-fold, as have speed-bumps and road-narrowing initiatives. There is no corresponding plateau in technology and new laws here to explain away the plateau in casualty-reduction rate! Because having ABS and four airbags in my car doesn't endanger my livelihood, threaten my freedom of movement or takes time away from my life.BTW I don't think that the govt forces these standards, I think car manufacturers adopt them because it makes them more competitive.In any case, I'm not complaining for the reasons outlined above. not really, cars are cheaper now than they were 10 yrs ago. Even if that was true, I don't mind paying for something that enhances my chance of surviving an accident. Actually yes, you are: , Even, in areas where such a limit might be partly justified, e.g. near a school, is there any need to have this limit outside school hours ? Only to make more money and populate the criminal record database.What most people outside the UK, particularly USA, fail to fully realize is not only the magnitude of the restrictions but also the absurdity of our laws and regulations. The legal definition of a built-up area in this country is not, as you would expect, an area with houses, but an area with street lighting. Our current laws of 30mph in built-up areas means that you must drive at no more than 30 as long as there are street lamps around, even though there may be no houses, people, or any living things in the area. This leads to some of the control madness we see in this country today.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Like I said, it's easier to tell the difference between 35mph and 40 mph than between 18 and 23, without constantly looking at the speedo. Let's try a little experiment, shall we? Next time you walk down the high street try reciting the Fibonacci series (1,1,2,3,5,8,..). At the end of your walk, count how many people/dogs/rubbish bins you collided with. You can only take attention away from your environment at the expense of safety. Why, yes it is. The brain doesn't receive enough stimuli to keep it occupied with the task at hand. When you get bored your mind just drifts. How many times, if you do a boring task, your mind starts thinking about your credit card bill, the tv schedule, or anything else but the task you're meant to be doing ? It's hardly rocket science. Who says that? The council, or the small minority of people who live in the town centre? Show me the universal conscent. I've covered this to death, See Message 55 for a quick summary. ...? are you trolling now or are you just being naive? I don't get in the car and drive for 1 1/2 hrs each day for fun you know. Wrong! The vast majority of people need a car to do their job. No car, no job. Would you really prefer that? Wrong! For most of us outside London there aren't any viable alternatives for getting to work (or anywhere else). DO you live in a bubble? A car is a necessity! so that's what this is all about? Some sort of car envy?! What happened, did your neighbour buy the latest Saab and you can't afford one?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Like I said in Message 80, we haven't just stopped at that, have we? Speed limits are getting lower, cameras are getting exponentially more numerous, roads keep getting narrower. So where is the expected continuing drop in death rate ?? Which only reinforces my point! The holy mantra of the anti-car brigade is that cameras, bumps, etc. save (pedestrian) lives. As you say, they don't! So, what's the point of having them? What? we're not talking about traffic cameras here, we're talking about speed cameras, you know, the ones that flash and then you get a summons in the post. And the vast majority of them are located in towns and villages. So I don't know what you're talking about. You're contradicting yourself now. If they're targeted at areas that are known "speeder" hotspots, aren't they there exactly to make those "speeders" slow down ? So how can you say that they have "a lesser safety role" ?! Ofcourse they are. To expose the propaganda and lies fed to us by the "speed kills" lobby. What's your point ? No it isn't. Neither is the Department of Transport's web site, nor every single "Safety Camera Partnership" web site in the country. Again, what's your point?The figures they use are The Dft's own! They don't just make them up. If you think they do feel free to expose them. See, it's comments like that one, and others telling me that I can easily move house closer to work and that I don't need a car (and also the fact that you call drivers "petrolheads") that lead me to believe that :- You're not very old.
- You don't drive to your work.
- Likely, you don't work.
- Also likely, you don't drive.
- You don't have a mortgage.
- You have no dependents.Now, if most of the above are correct, as I think they are, why don't you wait a few years till you have a job, a mortgage,a partner and two kids/dogs/goldfish, all dependent on you and then come and tell me that you still support banning cars because it makes town centres pretty and peaceful and that you're happy ditching your car for public transport and who needs cars with all their mod-cons anyway.Until then...

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."