Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 18:13

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 16 posts ] 
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
cerberus
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 23:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 21:39
Posts: 140
Location: St Annes
From tonight’s Blackpool Evening Gazette in the letters section

http://www.blackpooltoday.co.uk/ViewArt ... ID=1200661

Lancs Scammers wrote:
Whingers should belt up - we improve road safety
Richard Hook (Letters, September 6) was highly critical of the organisation for which I work – the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety.
He claimed the work we undertake was "unproductive" and "unnecessary" and outlined four questions, the answers to which he said we were choosing to ignore.
Although Mr Hook doubted we would respond, I would like to take this opportunity to answer as fully, frankly and factually as possible those questions.
Firstly, he wanted know what we are doing about camera sites on the Fylde where the number of accidents have increased rather than decreased.
With regard to this, anyone who works in safety, be it road safety, workplace safety etc will tell you that in some years there are more accidents than in other years.
The reasons for this are randomly myriad so, to assess whether or not a safety initiative of any kind is beneficial, you have to look at an overall picture spanning three to five years.
Our job is to reduce the number of road users killed and hurt on Lancashire's roads. It is not about necessarily reducing the number of road accidents per se, which is something that seems to cause confusion.
If, for an example, a motorist is in a crash, but because of a nearby safety camera they are driving at a slower speed than they otherwise would have been driving, that person is less likely to be killed or even hurt. It may be they are unscathed and need no treatment, saving the NHS valuable money. For us, that is the message reaching home, but the driver's crash is still recorded.
Regarding his second question, all that I can say is that latest, independent research shows that in the three years between June 2002 and June 2004 inclusive, safety cameras reduced death and serious injuries on stretches of roads where deployed by 40 per cent. That's a fact.
Mr Hook's third question concerned the junction of Devonshire Road and Warley Road, an accident hotspot.
He wanted to know why, if we say that camera revenue will be spent on road safety measures, there had been no improvement to this junction's lay-out to make it safer.
The answer to this question is simply that this is something he needs to ask the local Highways Authority – Blackpool Council – which is in charge of maintaining and making safe the roads in the borough.
When we receive safety camera revenue back from the Government, we can only spend that money on the installation of new static safety cameras, the maintenance of existing cameras, mobile enforcement and public education.
This brings me to Mr Hook's final question regarding what we do spend our money on. By far our greatest spend is on education.
We visit workplaces (factories, offices), ante natal clinics and SureStart groups, schools (nursery, primary and secondary), colleges, universities, shopping malls, mosques, motor shows, bike shows, agricultural fairs and family fun days throughout the county throughout the year with exhibitions and presentations aimed at encouraging motorists to drive within speed limits, not to drink and drive and to always wear a seat belt and ensure any passengers (adult, baby and child) are properly and safely restrained.
In addition, we pay for mobile speed enforcement, undertaken at sites of "community concern".
These are sites/roads where local residents have asked for our help because they are worried by speeding traffic. More often than not, these sites are by a school.
We also award "Community Action Road Safety Grants". These grants are sums of money from £50 to £1,000 that are given to community organisations that want to undertake their own road safety projects.
And finally, what money we do have left is spent on campaigns such as the Lost Soles campaign, which has just launched in Blackpool.
These campaigns bring us valuable radio and newspaper coverage, which helps spread our message.
Spend just an hour with us, Mr Hook, and you may change your mind about what we achieve.
Linda Sanderson
Communications Manager
Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety
Preston


I'm still waiting for a reply to an email I sent 2 weeks ago asking why they have that silly little driving game on their website, and not useing something meaning full like the observations video (how many things can you spot on a short 20sec drive on a country lane - signs, hazards, markings etc) that they use on their speed awareness course - I did the course 2yrs ago and they are still using it as my brother was on the course yesterday - also with the same effect - his group spotted around 10 things, mine 15, then when they ran the video back the instructors pointed out about 35 different things that you could use from normal road signs to chimney pots visible above tree tops in the distance.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pogo
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:24 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
cerberus wrote:
From tonight’s Blackpool Evening Gazette in the letters section

Lancs Scammers wrote:
...Regarding his second question, all that I can say is that latest, independent research shows that in the three years between June 2002 and June 2004 inclusive, safety cameras reduced death and serious injuries on stretches of roads where deployed by 40 per cent. That's a fact.

They still aren't willing to acknowledge RTTM are they... The lady don't know the difference between facts and statistical anomolies.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
botach
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Now the press releases must come from a central source because i have one from the smellie (sorry smillie) lot in Warks .Fines in last year = £3m.
To Treasury £1.1 m: "spent" on "road safety" £1.9m
Partnership spokesperson said"It is paying for road safety because it's paying for the work of the partnership.We're not just carrying out enforcement but education ,awareness and press campaigns and it is working": She also said that if "drivers stopped breaking the law " there would be no row over how much money the Government is making.
"When drivers are speeding ,they are dealt with".(i.e they get a NIP in post)(very educating

Mind you , a while ago they claimed that 3 or 4 cameras in one town were saving lives all over Warwickshire - :roll:


Last edited by botach on Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:03, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Gatsobait
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 01:02 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
pogo wrote:
They still aren't willing to acknowledge RTTM are they... The lady don't know the difference between facts and statistical anomolies.


They are when it suits them, at least in a reverse thinking kind of way.
Quote:
The reasons for this are randomly myriad so, to assess whether or not a safety initiative of any kind is beneficial, you have to look at an overall picture spanning three to five years.

In other words, high post camera figures are statistical blips and nothing to do with the cameras, low figures are a resounding success. Having your cake and eating it, basically.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Zamzara
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:28 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
cerberus wrote:
Regarding his second question, all that I can say is that latest, independent research shows that in the three years between June 2002 and June 2004 inclusive, safety cameras reduced death and serious injuries on stretches of roads where deployed by 40 per cent. That's a fact.


Yeah right. Lasy time I had a cold, I dropped a hammer on my foot and my cold got better. The hammer cured my cold! That's a fact!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
millsee
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 17:25
Posts: 94
the silly scammer wrote:
Our job is to reduce the number of road users killed and hurt on Lancashire's roads. It is not about necessarily reducing the number of road accidents per se, which is something that seems to cause confusion.
If, for an example, a motorist is in a crash, but because of a nearby safety camera they are driving at a slower speed than they otherwise would have been driving, that person is less likely to be killed or even hurt. It may be they are unscathed and need no treatment, saving the NHS valuable money. For us, that is the message reaching home, but the driver's crash is still recorded.


Utter utter bollocks.

Under this scenario, slight accidents would drop off the scale thereby lowering the overall accident rate.

Is it me?

:roll:
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
WildCat
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 13:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
cerberus wrote:
From tonight’s Blackpool Evening Gazette in the letters section

http://www.blackpooltoday.co.uk/ViewArt ... ID=1200661


Lancs Scammers wrote:
Whingers should belt up - we improve road safety
Richard Hook (Letters, September 6) was highly critical of the organisation for which I work – the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety.
He claimed the work we undertake was "unproductive" and "unnecessary" and outlined four questions, the answers to which he said we were choosing to ignore.
Although Mr Hook doubted we would respond, I would like to take this opportunity to answer as fully, frankly and factually as possible those questions.
Firstly, he wanted know what we are doing about camera sites on the Fylde where the number of accidents have increased rather than decreased.
With regard to this, anyone who works in safety, be it road safety, workplace safety etc will tell you that in some years there are more accidents than in other years.


So she accept regression to the mean....when it suit her! :roll:


LanCASH£££££re scammistress L£££nda wrote:
Our job is to reduce the number of road users killed and hurt on Lancashire's roads. It is not about necessarily reducing the number of road accidents per se, which is something that seems to cause confusion.
If, for an example, a motorist is in a crash, but because of a nearby safety camera they are driving at a slower speed than they otherwise would have been driving, that person is less likely to be killed or even hurt. It may be they are unscathed and need no treatment, saving the NHS valuable money. For us, that is the message reaching home, but the driver's crash is still recorded.


Perhaps they crash becuase they were watching the dash und not the road ahead.

But they are not improving road safety either - und hardly slowing down traffic given the constant flow of revenue raised - un NO accident! :roll:

But ist about nailing at 33/34mph still und giving them the Speed Course if other drivers (majority -maybe) above the invite threshold of 38mph on dual carriageway which used to be 50 mph anyway! :roll: By the way - no residential areas of schools on some of these roads....mostly fields... :roll:

LanCASH£££re L£££nda wrote:
Regarding his second question, all that I can say is that latest, independent research shows that in the three years between June 2002 and June 2004 inclusive, safety cameras reduced death and serious injuries on stretches of roads where deployed by 40 per cent. That's a fact.


Ist also fact that these roads never saw one accident before the scam - und scam ist only there because of daft decision to reduce a speed limit - maybe because business park could be built on those fields - but plan permission never granted....but ist nice little earner und you can claim whopping success of accident reduction where no accident happened anyway....Also - you place scams at areas where no injuries but little non-injury collision - was in admission in local press ca. Oct 2003. You talk to photographic long term memory bank bei mir|! :lol: :twisted:

[size=9] Mad Doc tremble at my memory :hehe: :twisted: [/small]





LanCASH£££re L££nda wrote:

Mr Hook's third question concerned the junction of Devonshire Road and Warley Road, an accident hotspot.
He wanted to know why, if we say that camera revenue will be spent on road safety measures, there had been no improvement to this junction's lay-out to make it safer.
The answer to this question is simply that this is something he needs to ask the local Highways Authority – Blackpool Council – which is in charge of maintaining and making safe the roads in the borough.



Ist cop out -- Road SAFETY PARTNERSHIP - should be part of your brief to identify these hazards und recommend un apply pressure working with the locals to iron these out! But easier to make money....Road think we have seen this on on trip to seaside - engineering will remove problem und need for the scamera... Just confimr desire to make money - und might I remind you the the Council ists supposed to be on of your partners :furious: You talk und work with partners! :furious:


LanCASH£££Re L£££nda wrote:
When we receive safety camera revenue back from the Government, we can only spend that money on the installation of new static safety cameras, the maintenance of existing cameras, mobile enforcement and public education.


More way to make money you mean ....und cash to speed course - pay to the Council - your partner....see above rant! :furious: By the way - small margin of income spent on public information leaflets per the website - but will say you do at least give some account unlike steviebabes... :wink: who go all reserved und sub-marinated :P when asked hard question. :wink: At least no dead carnations.....:yikes:

Speed course - good idea - but invites are still not correct. Need to work on this aspect - but from what have been told - will agree that the course as stand with strong COAST input teach :wink: is a good one from what I hear of it. Just the way the invites are dished out --- undermines it.



Lancash££re L££nda wrote:
This brings me to Mr Hook's final question regarding what we do spend our money on. By far our greatest spend is on education.
We visit workplaces (factories, offices),


Have pals who work in factories und offices throughout Lancs - und one cousin ist auditor who go round to lot of firms und factories - you have never been seen visiting und advising once by any of these people. Und remember people from my area do commute to Lancs to work in thes factories und offices - they have not seen you either.

LanCASH£££re L£££nda wrote:
ante natal clinics and SureStart groups,


Have pals expecting babies in Lancs area - they have not seen any one offering advice over car seats und driving with baby - und no one turned up to my ante-natal classes por even post natal classes last year to advise about anything to do with cars.

LanCASH££re L££nda wrote:
schools (nursery, primary and secondary), colleges, universities,


In circle of friends - - two cousins-in-law teach in Lancs - they have not seen you visiting their schools - but have bought a teacher's pack and gort some free :censored: hedgehog : :roll: stuff from you.... In fairness - they think the teacher's material was value for money but are not impressed with hedgehog thing as Tufty was a lot cuter! :wink:

Have pal who lecture at Lancaster Uni und acquaintance who work in office at the Central Lancs one .. they have not heard of any visits to lecture the students - who only appear if they have a lecture anyway - und who may give you a miss in preference to student jobs und Union bar. :wink:

Lancash££re L££nda wrote:
shopping malls, mosques, motor shows, bike shows, agricultural fairs and family fun days throughout the county throughout the year with exhibitions and presentations aimed at encouraging motorists to drive within speed limits, not to drink and drive and to always wear a seat belt and ensure any passengers (adult, baby and child) are properly and safely restrained.


Have been to Lancs shopping malls und big towns to do shopping for goods which are not in ambundance in rural Cumbria... not seen you in these malls either. Have seen Road Peace North West doing great job though! :wink:

But you are not doing this - as no mention in local press of such achievements....und you would not miss main chance for the publicity und photos! :wink:

LanCASH££££re L£££nda wrote:
In addition, we pay for mobile speed enforcement, undertaken at sites of "community concern".


:yesyes: Hiding under blanket in unmarked Hertz Hired van in Gastang - illegallly parked Ocotber 2003. Was in national tabloids - all of them! You nabbed our company rep at 34 mph on that one! He did the course....!


LanCASH££re L££nda wrote:
These are sites/roads where local residents have asked for our help because they are worried by speeding traffic. More often than not, these sites are by a school.



Have yet to see by these schools - ist where you maketh money! :roll:

LanCAHSH££re L££nda wrote:
We also award "Community Action Road Safety Grants". These grants are sums of money from £50 to £1,000 that are given to community organisations that want to undertake their own road safety projects.


Ah - yes - the villager with the :roll: speed gun.... :roll:


LanCASH££re L£££nda wrote:

And finally, what money we do have left is spent on campaigns such as the Lost Soles campaign, which has just launched in Blackpool.


This ist national - Carlisle did it... Bolton did it - even Merseyside (not a SCP area) did it...


Please tell me - how does a poster of a shoe in road achieve anything. Most would take it on the eye as anti-littering poster. :roll:

Lancash££re L££nda wrote:

These campaigns bring us valuable radio and newspaper coverage, which helps spread our message.
Spend just an hour with us, Mr Hook, and you may change your mind about what we achieve.
Linda Sanderson
Communications Manager
Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety
Preston


Not acheiving as as much as you think you are! By the way - proof ist in the pudding und those stats do leave a very sour taste in mouth...of failure.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
botach
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 14:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Now another thing i have noticed locally, might be interesting to see if it's a national trend.
One road home, i used to avoid like the plague after about 4 pm, due to long tailbacks at junction. Tried it lately and it would appear that traffic using this road is less, by a quite substantial amount.
Less cars = less risk of accidents, so cameras do improve road safety - on that road ( HO HUM, if you believe that )--what happens to the roads the traffic has moved to ??
Merely a case of moving accidents around, like shuffling stats , I suppose
As i said might be interesting to compare stats on the roads that now have an increased volume of traffic due to traffic avoiding those roads with cameras
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
andys280176
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 00:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:34
Posts: 603
Location: West Scotland
Quote:
Knobheads said:

With regard to this, anyone who works in safety, be it road safety, workplace safety etc will tell you that in some years there are more accidents than in other years.


Woo hoo Hooooston we have ground contact! Have you been reading SS then?


Quote:
And Also said:

The reasons for this are randomly myriad so, to assess whether or not a safety initiative of any kind is beneficial, you have to look at an overall picture spanning three to five years.


We've been waiting 13 years so far, hmm maybe a SLIGHT extension on that prediction?...... :roll:


Quote:
And had the audacity to say:

Regarding his second question, all that I can say is that latest, independent research shows that in the three years between June 2002 and June 2004 inclusive, safety cameras reduced death and serious injuries on stretches of roads where deployed by 40 per cent. That's a fact.



Oh is it? Errm...are we still living in the conceptual era of blinkered speed awareness? Oh yes! so sorry I forget... :roll:

Quote:
Yet more:

The answer to this question is simply that this is something he needs to ask the local Highways Authority – Blackpool Council – which is in charge of maintaining and making safe the roads in the borough..


A very uncommunicative partnership I must say.

RE to all scams: Favourable figures and reports to be used to our unscrupulous advantage, all other data to jettison.


Quote:
More:

We visit workplaces (factories, offices), ante natal clinics and SureStart groups, schools (nursery, primary and secondary), colleges, universities, shopping malls, mosques, motor shows, bike shows, agricultural fairs and family fun days throughout the county throughout the year with exhibitions and presentations aimed at encouraging motorists to drive within speed limits


And what a bloody waste of time this is, never see anyone at the stands. Talk about hypocrisy, try saving money on politically correct functions and investing it in real solutons to save lives!

GOOD night :D

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mad Moggie
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 00:40 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
cerberus wrote:
I'm still waiting for a reply to an email I sent 2 weeks ago asking why they have that silly little driving game on their website, and not useing something meaning full like the observations video (how many things can you spot on a short 20sec drive on a country lane - signs, hazards, markings etc) that they use on their speed awareness course - I did the course 2yrs ago and they are still using it as my brother was on the course yesterday - also with the same effect - his group spotted around 10 things, mine 15, then when they ran the video back the instructors pointed out about 35 different things that you could use from normal road signs to chimney pots visible above tree tops in the distance.


Also asked about that game on the web site. Par for the course - Derbyshire Prats had one where you your were always 10 minutes late but arrived alive even if you sat with arms folded at you laptop :lol: :banghead: :lol: The two men in the pub was a scream as well... teetotal bloke was anti-scam and the one knocking back the pints was full of how they saved lives... :roll: :roll: :roll:

[sarcasm mode]Think they got something a bit wrong on that one...[sarcasm mode] :roll:


The course video - heard about it from those known to have attended - COAST- based course. Seen completion certificate shoing COAST from chap who completed same course two years ago too.

Pity they employ people to trot out the same old party lines and target the wrong persons for the course. Someone on PH (their Brunstrom U-turn thread) - seems to confirm some Lancs areas are still going for a 10% blip to invite to the course. All they do with this is create resentment which undermines the course as offered.

Contrast with thread on belladonna's Road Peace forum ..and it looks like L£nda's mob are not doing quite as well as she'd like folk to believe... :roll: :roll: Little too much emphasis on a lollipop and funding more scams to generate jobs and more scams - and not enough on education despite her claims to the contrary. I can honestly say that I have not seen their reps giving road safety advice in the hospitals nor sen them at any bike or motor show which I have attended. As for school visits - usually to find the Police Schools Liaison Officer dishing out general safety advice on roads and talking to strangers etc per the teachers across the family.

Basically - most of her reply is total tosh! Agree with all replies so far...

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Patch
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 01:15 
Offline
Former Police Officer
Former Police Officer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 00:27
Posts: 351
Pardon me if I am being a bit thick here but...

The Scamera employee states that the only sensible measure is data captured over three to five years and then states that in the three years between June 2002 and June 2004 they have demonstrated a reduction.

No heres my being thick

Start date June 2002
June 2003 (1 year)
June 2004 End date (2 years)

Or am I missing something?

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Teepee
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 23:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 18:19
Posts: 90
Location: East Yorks
Oh Patch, you are stupid....!

Over the 3 years, say 4 KSI's per year = 12

KSI's over the counting period June 2002 to June 2004 = 8

Therefore reduction in casualties = 1 - (8/12) = 0.33 = 33%, rounded up to 40%. Bingo. It all ties in, you see.

Especially with this 'Independent research' (Unreferenced), at all speed camera sites, all sites in the County or just at a few selected sites. Mobile and/or fixed... ahem! In other words, a completely meaningless load of nonsense.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
JT
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 23:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
...then take away the number you first thought of... :hehe:

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
botach
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 20:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
A piece of culinary accountancy , or as said in musical circles, enough fiddles to fill the Albert Hall
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
johno1066
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 20:29 
And what does this statement indicate?? no wonder it causes confusion!!!

Quote:
Our job is to reduce the number of road users killed and hurt on Lancashire's roads. It is not about necessarily reducing the number of road accidents per se, which is something that seems to cause confusion.
Top
  
 
botach
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 21:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
johno1066 wrote:
And what does this statement indicate?? no wonder it causes confusion!!!

Quote:
Our job is to reduce the number of road users killed and hurt on Lancashire's roads. It is not about necessarily reducing the number of road accidents per se, which is something that seems to cause confusion.


Shouldn't that be rephrased, "our job is to baffle the public with meaningless statistics untill nobody knows what is the truth, and whilst investigations into the truth proceed, we can nip in and grab some cash, at the same time building up our empire :twisted:
"
Now , I would have thought that in every accident there would be a potential risk of a fatality.Reduce the accident rate and logic would dictate that the fatality risk should decrease.Or is that not the case in scamera cuckoo land
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 16 posts ] 

Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests

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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.109s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]