Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 03:22

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Crackdown on Boy Racers
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:22 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7262410.stm

Quote:
Boy racers targeted in crackdown
Ten drivers were issued with £60 fines in a crackdown on boy racers in a Cumbrian town over the weekend.

Police set up speed checks in 30mph zones across Penrith in an operation to combat irresponsible driving.

A spokeswoman said the move was a response to complaints of young drivers speeding in the town, especially near the South End Road carpark.

The highest speed recorded was 47mph and eight of the drivers fined were aged between 17 and 25.

The motorists will also receive three penalty points on their licence.

This follows on from the vehicle seized in Windermere recently.
Since they dont seem to have fallen foul of the CSCP cameras, it would seem to indicate the intelligence led approach is more successful!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 14:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
i'm surprised the highest speed is so low....
...is it really the speed which is a nuisance ?

i'd almost expect to find someone at that speed in a 30 daily.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 14:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Of course it's not the speed. Speed is a proxy for "I dont' like what they are doing".

Speed is also a proxy in "rat run through my road" and "too fast through my village". In almost all cases it's the mere presence of cars that is the real offence to the complainers (i.e. weight of traffic) rather than speed.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 14:54 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
malcolmw wrote:
Speed is also a proxy in "rat run through my road" and "too fast through my village". In almost all cases it's the mere presence of cars that is the real offence to the complainers (i.e. weight of traffic) rather than speed.

Indeed. They buy a house on a through-road, rather than paying the extra for one on a cul-de-sac, then they complain about "speeding" because really they don't want the traffic at all. It's selfish in a very calculating way, and the worst thing is that they're knowingly compromising safety, by encouraging an unnecessary emphasis on "speed" at the expense of the real dangers. It also has the "crying wolf" effect on those roads which really do have a problem with boy racers.

So instead of being merely selfish, irritating, inconsiderate and parasitic like I would imagine they usually are, these people are indirectly causing deaths and injuries. It's totally unacceptable.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 16:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Not sure if this is universal, but these clowns are racing each other around the estates like a time trial, rather than just speeding on urban roads.
Although the speed could have fatal consequences, it's the potential loss of control which poses the biggest risk.

Parked next to the school where I drop my son off, is a bright orange Nova with full body and light kit on.

About a month after the paint job was finished, the rear bumper was hanging off - secured by string.
It was eventually repaired, only for the rear quarter to soon display "battle damage", and this morning, the front wing had been trashed.
Clearly the driver has a problem keeping his car on the road, and poses a risk to other road users! :shock:

It's worth noting that the police go out properly equipped and STOP the offenders immediately, rather than sending NIP's out a week later!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 02:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
bombus wrote:
So instead of being merely selfish, irritating, inconsiderate and parasitic like I would imagine they usually are, these people are indirectly causing deaths and injuries. It's totally unacceptable.


I can understand your logic (the same can be applied to people who buy homes under approach paths to airports) but stating that these people are "indirectly causing deaths and injuries" is ridiculous.

For example, I live just off a fairly busy road that is oft plagued with irresponsible motorcyclists (and car drivers) come the summer months doing some quite frankly ridiculous speeds (50 limit) I don't think there have been any major accidents to speak of, but is it acceptable for the behaviour to continue just because no-one has crashed?

While it may be exciting for motoring enthusiasts, I can assure you when you've heard the hundredth superbike flying past with the latest illegal race exhausts, it becomes rather irritating. People shouldn't have to put up with it (and quite rightly, they don't).

It all boils down to having a bit of respect.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 00:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
The road we live on is a new, windy, twisty estate road with a 20mph limit.

Regularly hear boy racers driving way too fast for the conditions, screech of brakes.

Several months ago one of them misjudged the junction and smashed into a car of some of our neighbours who were on the on the way back from the local Sikh temple. The lady in the car that was hit was in hospital for months. :(

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 01:11 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I think it's noise as much as anything else that the residents are annoyed by. Very often people equate noise with "speed". What I can't understand is WHY they feel the need to do this round the town! Penrith isn't a big place and they wouldn't have to drive very far to get to some country lanes where they wouldn't bother anyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 09:07 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
Mole wrote:
Penrith isn't a big place and they wouldn't have to drive very far to get to some country lanes where they wouldn't bother anyone.


too far from mcdonalds ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 09:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 20:06
Posts: 77
Mole wrote:
". What I can't understand is WHY they feel the need to do this round the town! Penrith isn't a big place and they wouldn't have to drive very far to get to some country lanes where they wouldn't bother anyone.



A reason they do it in town is because they know the roads ,usually the road surfaces are better, the visibilty around corners is better . And of course there are plenty of places their mates can stand and watch :evil:

_________________
Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 21:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
I learned very quickly to teach a dog what it is OK to chew, than to prevent the dog from chewing things you don't want the dog to chew. It is easier in the short term, and wiser in the long term.

Preventing the dog from chewing may seem to work, until one day, your house is being consumed from the inside when you're gone. Still, when you are there, he chews nothing, so, that's a good thing, right?

My dog consumes bones like food. He chews nothing else.

Similarly, if children are not given outlets where their urges can be safely vented and/or redirected more politely, they will simply do it anyway, with little to no thought regarding danger or bad taste.

Perhaps giving boys safe 'boyracing' conditions would teach them things that would further endanger the faulty foundations of 'speed-centric' road safety policy?

I now admit to having been a 'boyracer'. Having survived - repeatedly - I know for a fact that I have learned that road safety is far more complicated than most people are willing to admit, or capable of articulating.

In other words, my mind is largely immune to all but the most well-thought-out ideas and beliefs regarding road safety, largely because I survived my idiocy phase, and learned the right lessons from it.

Focussing on the lessons while reducing the attendant risks - thoughtfully - might serve to reduce the fertile ground for any road safety policy whose primary purpose isn't real safety.

Which of course is yet another reason why the 'boyracing' problem will only appear to be effectively addressed in the short term - symptomatically. Without addressing its root cause, and/or redirecting it for a better end, it will return shortly, or seem to vanish, simply to pop up in some other place.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 21:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
Oh, and by the way ...
bombus wrote:
... the worst thing is that they're knowingly compromising safety, by encouraging an unnecessary emphasis on "speed" at the expense of the real dangers.
Except for the word 'knowingly', I agree entirely.
mpaton2004 wrote:
... is it acceptable for the behaviour to continue just because no-one has crashed?
No, but calling it a safety problem shouldn't be acceptable either.

Once upon not long ago, a lady who lived very close to a secondary service road (a road which runs parallel to its main highway) once stopped mowing her lawn to play chicken with me because she wanted to get me under 30MpH. I later learned that she was part of the lobby that very recently lowered the speed 'limit' from 55 MpH to 30Mph on that portion of the service road.

She has been quoted as regretting changing the limit, for her notoriety has earned her more noise, due to many more passersby revving their engines as they pass her house in protest. Any police presence has only served as a temporary solution.

The portion of the secondary service road she lives by is very close to a junction for three major highways and another major main road. Her rent and property taxes are about half one would expect in her neighborhood, even though crime in that neighborhood is almost nonexistent.

Oh, and by the way, accidents and serious injuries in that portion of the service road have doubled in the year since the speed 'limit' was lowered.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 23:21 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
If these young people were driving THAT irresponsibly, why let them all off with £60 and 3 points? What about dangerous driving? Motor racing on a public road?

If all they could stick them with was an SP30, they couldn't have been behaving that badly.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 00:21 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
mpaton2004 wrote:
bombus wrote:
So instead of being merely selfish, irritating, inconsiderate and parasitic like I would imagine they usually are, these people are indirectly causing deaths and injuries. It's totally unacceptable.


I can understand your logic (the same can be applied to people who buy homes under approach paths to airports) but stating that these people are "indirectly causing deaths and injuries" is ridiculous.

I wasn't talking about people who have a genuine problem with speed (i.e. going too fast for the conditions) on their road. They are perfectly entitled to get the problem dealt with in a reasonable way (although they are not entitled to expect less traffic). Similarly, people with genuine frequent incidences of speeding on their road are also entitled to aim to get those people not to exceed the speed limit, however little actual difference that is going to make.

I was talking about those who knowingly and deliberately make up (or greatly talk up) "speeding" on their road, just because they don't like the mere presence of the traffic. This deception ultimately contributes towards and encourages a policy based on speed cameras, by exaggerating the incidence and impact of speeding. It distorts our road safety priorities. And I believe that through their side effects speed cameras cause deaths and injuries, which is tragically ironic given the nonsense about how they save them.

So I'm afraid I don't think it's remotely ridiculous. And anyone who thinks that cameras cause deaths and injuries, or even that they just don't save lives, will surely also believe that these people are indirectly causing deaths and injuries by putting unnecessary emphasis on cameras at the cost of real road safety measures. When I say "deliberately", I don't mean knowingly, I just mean that they have chosen to make up a speeding problem, and therefore they've deliberately misreported a road safety-related situation, despite presumably realising that doing so was quite possibly going to cause deaths and injuries somewhere along the way.

Of course it's possible that someone could move into a house on a through-road with the plan to report speeding that wasn't there, and find that a lot of the traffic really was speeding. In this case, if they actually reported what they saw, they wouldn't be causing deaths or injuries, since they wouldn't be producing crap data.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 00:55 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
mpaton2004 wrote:
bombus wrote:
So instead of being merely selfish, irritating, inconsiderate and parasitic like I would imagine they usually are, these people are indirectly causing deaths and injuries. It's totally unacceptable.


I can understand your logic (the same can be applied to people who buy homes under approach paths to airports) but stating that these people are "indirectly causing deaths and injuries" is ridiculous.

I wasn't talking about people who have a genuine problem with speed (i.e. going too fast for the conditions) on their road. They are perfectly entitled to get the problem dealt with in a reasonable way (although they are not entitled to expect less traffic). Similarly, people with genuine frequent incidences of speeding on their road are also entitled to aim to get those people not to exceed the speed limit, however little actual difference that is going to make.

I was talking about those who knowingly and deliberately make up (or greatly talk up) "speeding" on their road, just because they don't like the mere presence of the traffic. This deception ultimately contributes towards and encourages a policy based on speed cameras, by exaggerating the incidence and impact of speeding. It distorts our road safety priorities. And I believe that through their side effects speed cameras cause deaths and injuries, which is tragically ironic given the nonsense about how they save them.

So I'm afraid I don't think it's remotely ridiculous. And anyone who thinks that cameras cause deaths and injuries, or even that they just don't save lives, will surely also believe that these people are indirectly causing deaths and injuries by putting unnecessary emphasis on cameras at the cost of real road safety measures. When I say "deliberately", I don't mean knowingly, I just mean that they have chosen to make up a speeding problem, and therefore they've deliberately misreported a road safety-related situation, despite presumably realising that doing so was quite possibly going to cause deaths and injuries somewhere along the way.

Of course it's possible that someone could move into a house on a through-road with the plan to report speeding that wasn't there, only to find that a lot of the traffic really was speeding. In this case, if they actually reported what they saw, they wouldn't be causing deaths or injuries, since they wouldn't be producing crap data, despite having intended to.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.267s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]