'No more war on the motorist'

lost_in_thought

Mr Hughes? Meredydd is a man's name?

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mr Hughes? Meredydd is a man's name?

It can be both I believe.

greg66_tri_v2.0

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

Good find.

Chief Constable Hughes said

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

. This was reported in Dec 2006. So it is not unfair to take the morbidity stats for 2006from that link.

That's a 348 page pdf. It classifies causes of death in numerous categories and sub-categories; see pages 19 and 20 of the pdf.

Categories V01-V99 are transport accidents. P 236 of the pdf tells us that in 2006, 89 girls aged 15-19 died in transport accidents.

That figure is broken down over the following pages: 15 were peds, 1 was a cyclist, 2 were motorcyclists, 66 were in a car and 5 were "other" - an unclassified catch all (see cat V89.2).

The 66 car occupants are broken down into various types of accident, and whether the deceased was a driver, passenger or other (presumably unrecorded). In the 15-19 age group, of the 66 occupants, 24 were drivers, 25 were passengers and 17 were "other"

Unless, therefore, virtually all of the accidents involving 15-19 year old girls were ones where their boyfriends were driving, and not (eg) their parents, siblings, friends, or taxi drivers, it looks overwhelmingly likely that more 15-19 year old girls were killed by their own driving than that of their boyfriends.

Furthemore, p 250 of the pdf shows that 25 girls in this age group died of external accidents; p 256 shows that 23 died of intentional self harm; and p 42 shows that 48 dies of diseases of the nervous system and 52 of neoplasms (cancers).

So unless S Yorks is a statistical anomaly, the anecdotal evidence relayed to CC Hughes is wrong.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mr Hughes? Meredydd is a man's name?

It can be both I believe.

ITB would say that's a woman.

But not any of the rest of us.

notsoblue

warthog562 wrote:

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.

Interesting! Didn't know that.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

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

Good find.

Chief Constable Hughes said

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

. This was reported in Dec 2006. So it is not unfair to take the morbidity stats for 2006from that link.

That's a 348 page pdf. It classifies causes of death in numerous categories and sub-categories; see pages 19 and 20 of the pdf.

Categories V01-V99 are transport accidents. P 236 of the pdf tells us that in 2006, 89 girls aged 15-19 died in transport accidents.

That figure is broken down over the following pages: 15 were peds, 1 was a cyclist, 2 were motorcyclists, 66 were in a car and 5 were "other" - an unclassified catch all (see cat V89.2).

The 66 car occupants are broken down into various types of accident, and whether the deceased was a driver, passenger or other (presumably unrecorded). In the 15-19 age group, of the 66 occupants, 24 were drivers, 25 were passengers and 17 were "other"

Unless, therefore, virtually all of the accidents involving 15-19 year old girls were ones where their boyfriends were driving, and not (eg) their parents, siblings, friends, or taxi drivers, it looks overwhelmingly likely that more 15-19 year old girls were killed by their own driving than that of their boyfriends.

Furthemore, p 250 of the pdf shows that 25 girls in this age group died of external accidents; p 256 shows that 23 died of intentional self harm; and p 42 shows that 48 dies of diseases of the nervous system and 52 of neoplasms (cancers).

So unless S Yorks is a statistical anomaly, the anecdotal evidence relayed to CC Hughes is wrong.

Anecdotes not corresponding with actual statistics? Who'd have thought. It'd be interesting to look at the corresponding stats for males 15-19. BTW, unless they were driving illegally, and assuming an even distribution of ages within the 15-19 category, only about half would be able to be the driver, so this suggests that maybe teenage girls aren't terribly safe drivers either.

EDIT: OK, the corresponding figure for male, age 15-19 trafic accident deaths is 302 (as compared with 89) and 175(M) vs. 66(M) for car occupants. Motorcycle related deaths make up a fairly large chunk of the 302 as well (big surprise).

jds_1981

Digging up an old thread..

My local council is increasing parking permits by over 50% for what I at least would consider a reasonable sized car engine

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Transport/R ... il-Dec.asp

spen666

jds_1981 wrote:

Digging up an old thread..

My local council is increasing parking permits by over 50% for what I at least would consider a reasonable sized car engine

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Transport/R ... il-Dec.asp

And?

They are also increasing it by 50% for smaller and larger vehicles as well.

bails87

jds_1981 wrote:

Digging up an old thread..

My local council is increasing parking permits by over 50% for what I at least would consider a reasonable sized car engine

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Transport/R ... il-Dec.asp

What size engine are you referring to?

mybreakfastconsisted

Councils across the capital are to wage war on drivers in the new year, increasing the cost of residents' parking by up to 150 per cent and ramping up the cost of on-street parking.

A Standard investigation has found that motorists could be forced to pay more than double for residents' permits or on-street pay-and-display.

The move will reignite the accusation that local authorities are using drivers as “cash cows” to fill funding black holes.

Councils, which set their own charges, consistently deny parking charges fund anything unrelated to roads, including maintenance and street lighting. But campaigners say a clear link has now been drawn between town hall debt and motoring charges.

In the worst case, residents in Barnet will see their resident permits rise from £40 to £100 — a 150 per cent increase — when the council is looking for £54 million in cuts.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... ing-gap.do

rjsterry

So if they were to not raise parking charges, etc., which section of society should they go to instead to make up the shortfall? Increased Council Tax? Bigger fines on late-returned library books?

mybreakfastconsisted

Everything increases in cost, that article is dreadfully emotive and vague.

jds_1981

rjsterry wrote:

So if they were to not raise parking charges, etc., which section of society should they go to instead to make up the shortfall? Increased Council Tax? Bigger fines on late-returned library books?

Shortfall for what? Councils are not supposed to use parking charges for anything more than running the scheme. I put forward the notion that a lot of these schemes are self-serving and not required to the extent they are used.

bails87

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Councils, which set their own charges, consistently deny parking charges fund anything unrelated to roads, including maintenance and street lighting. But campaigners say a clear link has now been drawn between town hall debt and motoring

But that doesn't mean anything. If the 2 years ago the charges were low and paid for everything to do with roads then fair enough. But for all we know, they only cover 1% of the road maintenance costs, and other sources can no longer 'subsidise' the roads, so the councils are making the people who park on the road pay for it.

jds_1981

bails87 wrote:

so the councils are making the people who park on the road pay for it.

Parked cars don't cause much wear and tear, nor necessarily does potential co2 production have a great correlation to it.

mybreakfastconsisted

jds_1981 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

so the councils are making the people who park on the road pay for it.

Parked cars don't cause much wear and tear, nor necessarily does potential co2 production have a great correlation to it.

Cars parked on verges and pavements cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds every year.

turnerjohn

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

so the councils are making the people who park on the road pay for it.

Parked cars don't cause much wear and tear, nor necessarily does potential co2 production have a great correlation to it.

Cars parked on verges and pavements cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds every year.

errr which is why there would technically be illegaly parked and could be done for it !
Taxing residents just because they have a car is a damed cheak and just another excuse to fleece us drivers !
For the record I commute each day by bike (DLR if its really bad)

northstar

Taxing residents just because they have a car is a damed cheak and just another excuse to fleece us drivers

got it in one tbf.

Tonymufc

If the majority of this country rode a bike I wonder what the title of this thread would read?

mybreakfastconsisted

turnerjohn wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

so the councils are making the people who park on the road pay for it.

Parked cars don't cause much wear and tear, nor necessarily does potential co2 production have a great correlation to it.

Cars parked on verges and pavements cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds every year.

errr which is why there would technically be illegaly parked and could be done for it !
Taxing residents just because they have a car is a damed cheak and just another excuse to fleece us drivers !
For the record I commute each day by bike (DLR if its really bad)

Complain to the cops, they refer you to the council.

Complain to the council, they say it's a police matter.

Every road in the Golden Triangle in Norwich has cars parked on the pavement so pedestrians have to walk in the road. The cops addressed the issue by putting signs up on Earlham Road reminding cyclists pavement cycling is illegal.

bails87

jds_1981 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

so the councils are making the people who park on the road pay for it.

Parked cars don't cause much wear and tear, nor necessarily does potential co2 production have a great correlation to it.

True, but I imagine a lot of people who park their cars on the road also drive that car at some point.