On 15 Aug, 17:21, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
>> On 15 Aug, 08:58, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>> At long last they are starting to take notice that road killings are
>>>> just as bad as any other kind of killings and that the car can be a
>>>> lethal weapon like any other. Problem still is though that we live in
>>>> a saturated car culture where the police and the courts are
>>>> predominantly populated by motorists with an inevitable bias. How do
>>>> the police turn up to road crashes? In cars of course
>
>>> Have you actually seen what equipment goes into a Traffic Police car?
>>> Unpacked and standing alongside the car, it looks as though the car has
>>> to
>>> be related to the Tardis to get everything inside.
>
>> The point you are missing is that merely being car users themselves
>> the police are predisposed to take the side of the motorist except in
>> extreme cases.
>
> My cousin used to work in a motorway control centre and had a thing for men
> in uniform, so I used to get to meet a lot of traffic police. An ex-traffic
> cop also taught me to fly. To a man, they had a very low opinion of the
> average motorist and definitely were not predisposed to give them any
> leeway.
>
What makes you think that the police do not also have a very low
opinion of the public at large, including cyclists and peds? The mere
fact though that they themselves are mainly motorists will inevitably
tinge their opinions.
>
>>>> and they usually
>>>> blame the vulnerable ped or cyclist victim first, as frequently
>>>> witnessed on TV.
>
>>> I don't recall ever seeing Police atending an accident involving a
>>> pedestrian or cyclist on TV.
>
>> Watched one last night with two incidents involving injured children
>> victims. In both cases the police blamed the kids instead of the
>> motorists who hit them.
>
> As I said, we must have quite different viewing habits. Nevertheless,
> however spontaneous it might appear, anything that the Police say to camera
> has almost certainly needed several takes and quite possibly has had to be
> passed by a senior officer, if not the Police Force lawyer. If they blamed
> the kids, it probably was their fault. If it were not the comments would
> severely compromise any chance of charging anyone over the incident.
>
Its the old, "They ran into the road from behind a parked car,
officer." So why are cars allowed to be left at the side of the road
as a danger to kids? The reason is simple, motorists are allowed take
priority over more vulnerable road users.
So how do you try to justify the motorist who was fully exonerated by
police after hitting a kid but who admitted to putting his foot on the
accelerator instead of the brake?
>
>
>>> I think most contributors here would think that a good move, although it
>>> would probably be better to police the careless driving better in the
>>> first
>>> place and avoid the accident.
>
>> It could be argued that now faced with imprisonment most drivers will
>> take more care to avoid killing people and avoid the distractions
>> which cause the crashes.
>
> That is obviously what the proponents of this Act hope, but, most people
> adopt the 'it can't happen to me' approach. Unless the careless drivers are
> caught before they have an accident, they will continue to think they are
> somehow different from all the other people doing stupid things while
> driving.
>
Road deaths are dropping, obviously due to all the many safety
measures which have been introduced over the years and despite the
ongoing proliferation of vehicle journeys on our roads. I am sure that
the mere threat of a mandatory prison sentence must modify driving
behaviour.
>
>> An interesting point made on TV this morning
>> was that roadside advertising billboards are such a distraction so
>> such commercial graffiti should obviously be removed in the interests
>> of safety
>
> That problem was first addressed in the 1948 Town and Country Planning Act
> and Councils have the power to refuse or order the removal of any
> advertising hoardings that may distract drivers.
>
So why don't they? It could be argued that if Councils don't remove
them they are complicit in any deaths they contribute to by causing
driver distractions.
