'No more war on the motorist'

lost_in_thought

Mr Sworld wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

How on earth did you find that out?

Copy the quote and paste it into Google....

Seems like quite a lot of effort just to annoy a persistent PITA....

mybreakfastconsisted

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mr Sworld wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

How on earth did you find that out?

Copy the quote and paste it into Google....

Seems like quite a lot of effort just to annoy a persistent PITA....

The man's obsessed, it's like being followed around by a teenaged girl and being passed notes saying "I hate you!"

Kieran_Burns

Mr Sworld wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

How on earth did you find that out?

Copy the quote and paste it into Google....

that's all I did

lost_in_thought

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mr Sworld wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

How on earth did you find that out?

Copy the quote and paste it into Google....

Seems like quite a lot of effort just to annoy a persistent PITA....

The man's obsessed, it's like being followed around by a teenaged girl and being passed notes saying "I hate you!"

You're the persistent PITA, btw.

rjsterry

A better argument might be to point out how high car insurance premiums are for teenage males (there was a thread on this, but let's not revisit it). In any case, I'm not sure how pointing out that teenage males tend to have more accidents than other drivers (not exactly news, that) relates directly to your original post about Philip Hammond making some crowd-pleasing comments about some spurious war on motorists and a dig at Labour.

By the way, the fact that they will reinstate the lane for the Olympics does rather give the lie to the claim that it doesn't work - assuming of course that you think the purpose of the bus lane was to allow buses (which have to run to a timetable) to avoid getting held up in traffic jams. To claim that the bus lane improves traffic flow for other motorists was probably a sop to keep the motoring lobby quiet.

Now, let's have several pages of argument on whether there is such a thing as the motoring lobby.

Actually, let's not.

mybreakfastconsisted

Some insurers, (Co Op and Aviva) are flatly refusing to add named drivers under 30 years old.

My point is that paedophile abductions or schoolchildren stabbings get tons of media coverage, but the single biggest killed of children is the motor car, yet Hammond describes scrapping road safety initiatives as "The end of the war against motorists" which shows how skewed his priorities are.

davmaggs

+1 Lit

Number9 or whatever his latest ID happens to be is a nutjob. I don't use that term lightly either, but he/she lacks any reasoning and seems oblivious to even the most basic concepts of evidence or research.

thankfully rehashing the same old hyperbole makes it easy to spot.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

the fact that they will reinstate the lane for the Olympics does rather give the lie to the claim that it doesn't work - assuming of course that you think the purpose of the bus lane was to allow buses (which have to run to a timetable) to avoid getting held up in traffic jams.

I doubt it will be for buses during the Olys.

If Vancouver is anything to go by, the IOC mandates that there be Olympic lanes for the "Olympic family" - athletes, coaches, and more than a few hangers on. These are likely to be all over the place. I would not be surprised if one of the two lanes on the elevated section of the M4 into London is also set aside as a continuation of the M4 bus lane, and the whole lot will be called an Olympic lane.

The IOC is *huge* on public transport being available for event spectators, although in reality this means bespoke coach services, and the number 92 bus can't take the loads, and doesn't go to the right places.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, says:

“One fact quoted to me quite often is that the single biggest killer now of teenage girls is their teenage boyfriends driving their cars.”

Erm, what?

How is that actually evidence of the fact? It's just evidence that the statement has been made to someone, not that the underlying fact is sound.

What a bizarre thing to do.

mybreakfastconsisted

Do you think Hughes is wrong davmaggs?

On what basis?

W1

Greg66 wrote:

Fascinating.

Number9 now posting as mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can quite believe it. Statistically driving is one of the most dangerous things that any of us do, men are particularly aggressive drivers, young men even more so. Teenage lads don`t even have the vital experience necessary to avoid trouble and, to finish off, they`re probably showing off to try and impress their girlfriends.

This quote, verbatim, appeared first here in 2006 (even including the wonky apostrophes.

Have you been picking this fight for four years?

Utterly, utterly busted.

Do you have anything original to say Mr Consisted?

Do you ever give credit to the original authors of your copy+pasted "work"?


Anyhow, thanks for once again evidencing your "rational" debate.

Madder than a bag full of cut frogs. On a plane.

W1

davmaggs wrote:

+1 Lit

Number9 or whatever his latest ID happens to be is a nutjob. I don't use that term lightly either, but he/she lacks any reasoning and seems oblivious to even the most basic concepts of evidence or research.

thankfully rehashing the same old hyperbole makes it easy to spot.

Wait for the word "strawman". Then you know you're on to a winner.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, says:

“One fact quoted to me quite often is that the single biggest killer now of teenage girls is their teenage boyfriends driving their cars.”

Erm, what?

How is that actually evidence of the fact? It's just evidence that the statement has been made to someone, not that the underlying fact is sound.

What a bizarre thing to do.

OK.


The rate between the number one and number two killed of teenaged girls is around double. So twice as many girls are killed on the roads than commit suicide. I've not seen any evidence that in most of the RTC fatalities the girls are pedestrians, usually they are car occupants.

Is it really worth getting bogged down in whether their boyfriends or anyone else was the driver?

It really doesn't detract from the point!

lost_in_thought

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, says:

“One fact quoted to me quite often is that the single biggest killer now of teenage girls is their teenage boyfriends driving their cars.”

Erm, what?

How is that actually evidence of the fact? It's just evidence that the statement has been made to someone, not that the underlying fact is sound.

What a bizarre thing to do.

OK.


The rate between the number one and number two killed of teenaged girls is around double. So twice as many girls are killed on the roads than commit suicide. I've not seen any evidence that in most of the RTC fatalities the girls are pedestrians, usually they are car occupants.

Is it really worth getting bogged down in whether their boyfriends or anyone else was the driver?

It really doesn't detract from the point!

Seeing as your point was that most deaths among teenage girls were caused by their teenage boyfriends' driving, it kinda does.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, says:

“One fact quoted to me quite often is that the single biggest killer now of teenage girls is their teenage boyfriends driving their cars.”

Erm, what?

How is that actually evidence of the fact? It's just evidence that the statement has been made to someone, not that the underlying fact is sound.

What a bizarre thing to do.

OK.


The rate between the number one and number two killed of teenaged girls is around double. So twice as many girls are killed on the roads than commit suicide. I've not seen any evidence that in most of the RTC fatalities the girls are pedestrians, usually they are car occupants.

Is it really worth getting bogged down in whether their boyfriends or anyone else was the driver?

It really doesn't detract from the point!

Of course it is - because that's what you have alleged.

Or admit that you might just have made it up in some mad hyperbollock hand wringing spasm of theatrics?

davmaggs

Sorry, you're still not going to get me. You are a lunatic and cannot be reasoned with.

mybreakfastconsisted

If half of the deaths occurred in cars driven by the boyfriends then the statement's true.

I think it's likely more than half were killed in their boyfriend's car.

It would be interesting if anyone went through the stats.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the fact that they will reinstate the lane for the Olympics does rather give the lie to the claim that it doesn't work - assuming of course that you think the purpose of the bus lane was to allow buses (which have to run to a timetable) to avoid getting held up in traffic jams.

I doubt it will be for buses during the Olys.

If Vancouver is anything to go by, the IOC mandates that there be Olympic lanes for the "Olympic family" - athletes, coaches, and more than a few hangers on. These are likely to be all over the place. I would not be surprised if one of the two lanes on the elevated section of the M4 into London is also set aside as a continuation of the M4 bus lane, and the whole lot will be called an Olympic lane.

The IOC is *huge* on public transport being available for event spectators, although in reality this means bespoke coach services, and the number 92 bus can't take the loads, and doesn't go to the right places.

Agreed, they've been fairly up front about it being just for the "Olympic family" (couldn't make that sound much more sinister could they). I did see that they are starting up a waterbus up and down the River Lea.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

If

Quite.

SimonAH

Bringing things back down again a snotch, there is IMO a really good system in quite a few areas of the USA. You can get your licence at a young age, but you are not (for a good couple of years) allowed to carry passengers under the age of (I think, you can correct if I'm wrong) 35 UNLESS, there is also somebody over the age of 35 in the car.

ergo;
No showing off to your girlfriend
No showing off to your mates

Major (proveable) reduction in road deaths, (and probably a reduction in back seat pregnancies)

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the fact that they will reinstate the lane for the Olympics does rather give the lie to the claim that it doesn't work - assuming of course that you think the purpose of the bus lane was to allow buses (which have to run to a timetable) to avoid getting held up in traffic jams.

I doubt it will be for buses during the Olys.

If Vancouver is anything to go by, the IOC mandates that there be Olympic lanes for the "Olympic family" - athletes, coaches, and more than a few hangers on. These are likely to be all over the place. I would not be surprised if one of the two lanes on the elevated section of the M4 into London is also set aside as a continuation of the M4 bus lane, and the whole lot will be called an Olympic lane.

The IOC is *huge* on public transport being available for event spectators, although in reality this means bespoke coach services, and the number 92 bus can't take the loads, and doesn't go to the right places.

Hmm...
Agreed, they've been fairly up front about it being just for the "Olympic family" (couldn't make that sound much more sinister could they). I did see that they are starting up a waterbus up and down the River Lea.

Is't there something similar for the Russian mafia/government?

davmaggs

or last King of Scotland for Idi Amin. Military outriders for the head of show jumping I say

rjsterry

Eh? Where did that "Hmm..." come from? The Olympic Family?

tailwindhome

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the fact that they will reinstate the lane for the Olympics does rather give the lie to the claim that it doesn't work - assuming of course that you think the purpose of the bus lane was to allow buses (which have to run to a timetable) to avoid getting held up in traffic jams.

I doubt it will be for buses during the Olys.

If Vancouver is anything to go by, the IOC mandates that there be Olympic lanes for the "Olympic family" - athletes, coaches, and more than a few hangers on. These are likely to be all over the place. I would not be surprised if one of the two lanes on the elevated section of the M4 into London is also set aside as a continuation of the M4 bus lane, and the whole lot will be called an Olympic lane.

The IOC is *huge* on public transport being available for event spectators, although in reality this means bespoke coach services, and the number 92 bus can't take the loads, and doesn't go to the right places.

Hmm...
Agreed, they've been fairly up front about it being just for the "Olympic family" (couldn't make that sound much more sinister could they). I did see that they are starting up a waterbus up and down the River Lea.

Is't there something similar for the Russian mafia/government?

You're thinking of Tony Blair

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Eh? Where did that "Hmm..." come from? The Olympic Family?

Sorry, that was me and my poor editng.

Hmm (to myself).

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the fact that they will reinstate the lane for the Olympics does rather give the lie to the claim that it doesn't work - assuming of course that you think the purpose of the bus lane was to allow buses (which have to run to a timetable) to avoid getting held up in traffic jams.

I doubt it will be for buses during the Olys.

If Vancouver is anything to go by, the IOC mandates that there be Olympic lanes for the "Olympic family" - athletes, coaches, and more than a few hangers on. These are likely to be all over the place. I would not be surprised if one of the two lanes on the elevated section of the M4 into London is also set aside as a continuation of the M4 bus lane, and the whole lot will be called an Olympic lane.

The IOC is *huge* on public transport being available for event spectators, although in reality this means bespoke coach services, and the number 92 bus can't take the loads, and doesn't go to the right places.

Hmm...
Agreed, they've been fairly up front about it being just for the "Olympic family" (couldn't make that sound much more sinister could they). I did see that they are starting up a waterbus up and down the River Lea.

Is't there something similar for the Russian mafia/government?

You're thinking of Tony Blair

Much of a muchness then.

jds_1981

Regarding causes of death, this is the nearest I could find to raw data -

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/P ... vlnk=15096

You are allowed to try and interpret as you wish

Most relevant bit is probably the 'traffic accidents' section where in 2008 there were 80 female casualties of road traffic accidents who were between the ages of 15 & 19.

mybreakfastconsisted

jds_1981 wrote:

Regarding causes of death, this is the nearest I could find to raw data -

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/P ... vlnk=15096

You are allowed to try and interpret as you wish

Most relevant bit is probably the 'traffic accidents' section where in 2008 there were 80 female casualties of road traffic accidents who were between the ages of 15 & 19.

Of course we know the actual driver, and relationship with the victim, isn't recorded, but unless there were more than say 40 suicides in the same age group Mr Hughes is right.

warthog562

i can answer why the the heatrow connect is not advertised like the hex, this is because they are both the same company and they have to run the connect by their contract to run the hex.

hence all the advetrs for the hex it makes more money.

jds_1981

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Of course we know the actual driver, and relationship with the victim, isn't recorded, but unless there were more than say 40 suicides in the same age group Mr Hughes is right.

Mr Hughes said that he was told that information, so unless he lied about being told it of course he was right?

I'd urge you to look at the raw data. Anyway, think 40 is a bad random figure to jump to. Presumably 'transport accident' doesn't necessarily mean car, doesn't necessarily mean even when it was due to a car that they were in it, doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't driving it themselves, or one of their friends was driving it.
Ultimately it may be correct that when you break down the figures into fairly precise groups - which is what 'killed in car driven by boyfriend' is - then highest cause was that. However I suspect even if the case it'd be no more than a handful across an age group of five years.
Look at the raw information and draw your own conclusions. Seriously the internet is amazing. You don't need to regurgitate biased web sites and opinion columns when you've access to the underlying data.