Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Road Deaths Prompt Driving Test Shake-Up

Speed Cameras are not the way forward, there are ways in which it will work, but we don't really want them anyway.

Need more police to enforce more of the road laws. At the moment the amount of complete idiots I see doing stupid things on the road which are totally illegal, day in, day out, everywhere you go, it is amazing. If the laws were enforced so that people were forced to obey them, that would lower road deaths significantly.
 
Imho what we should do is limit the size of car a new or young driver is allowed.

Under 21 or held a licence for less than two years and you are limited to driving a car no greater than 1100cc. No flash bells and whistles, no twin carbs or race exhaust systems.

The roads are full of 17 year old saxo drivers who have pimped the fuck out of their motors, and probably havent told the insurance company-so in effect aren't insured.


Raise driving age to 22

Limit cars to 50bhp for the under 30s, especially men.

More traffic cops, the most socially useful kind of copper there is.

bans for silly drivers to be longer and prison for breaching to be automatic.

new drivers to have dayglo pink cars

Tailgating to be punishable, at the roadside, by having your car burned out for you by a Highways Agency employee with a bottle of turps and a match. Second offence, same but you have to sit in the car.

Same for undertaking with a severe, cruel beating thrown in.
 
Trust, trust, trust and make young people feel as if they are adults and not resent authority or rules of the road is the way forward. I am not suggesting we should let 14 year olds drive on there own. They could drive under parental or adult supervision and only on certain road types and times of day (daylight) - 21 might be a sensible age for them to be allowed to drive between 6pm-8am?

There's a lot more to safety psychology than common sense will tell you.

Hazard perception and risk evaluation are partly developmental issues. Age is a factor in both, for more than the obvious reasons associated with added experience with advancing years.


Young people are not adults, fully.
 
I didnt mean it from a point of view of increasing power or anything, but I see it this way. Young drivers see their cars as a way of being flash, showing off, hence the bells, whistles and chrome. This inevitably leads to showing off with their driving, incorrect use if speed and disrespect for other road users. If they all had to drive round in Reliant Robins til they were old enough to realise that a car is a killing machine then maybe the urge to be a flah twat might be disapated somewhat!

great so we just move that date from when they are pretty much pennyless to a point say at 25 to 35 when they have more money than they know what to do with...

thing is most car bling unless you are going to spend serious money on serious kit (and very likely make for an impossibly uncomfortable road car) you can't do a lot to your car which going to increase it's performance which is sold via the pages of max power... it is just usless tat largely...

it makes no difference to how they drive it.

equally you are letting your own snobbishness about what people and people who drive cars should look like overtake you. The stats on the road accidents pretty much say it's the 35 to 45 drivers who consistantly use inappropreate speed, drive under the influence of alchol, and have the majority of accident.

now I'm all for a 2 stage licence which paralles those of bikes which would mean having to take your test again for a larger engine. But my 1.1 car will do 100mph... and the 752 cc mg from 1933 i race is supercharged and will go at over 120mph and both are quite handleable at these speeds they aren't going to cause serious injury etc used in the appropreate manner.

but are stil capable of killing at inappropreate speed and neither of those would fall outside of the usual small engines are less powerful which means safer roads... Which patently isn't true.

I'd also support a supercar ban for the first year again stopping the passing the test in a micra and driving away in a porsche syndrome which some people stil beleive exists though i'd imagine it's as rare now as it ever has been...

the reality of driving is though that you don't start learning until you've passed your test and until you have sufficent experince.

again none of which is compensated for by banneding them from having silly steros or loud exhausts (all of which add weight to the car and slow it down slightly by doing so....).

and you are creating a sterotype which isn't true of all or even the majority of young drivers but are attempting to corrliate some behaviour and say this is typical which it isn't.

It's almost a class assesment you are doing because you have no issue in your statement for middle aged people leaping into their porsche cayannne or their bmw m3 etc who see their cars as a way of being flash, showing off, hence the bells, whistles and chrome.

which as you state apperently leads to showing off with their driving, incorrect use if speed and disrespect for other road users. If they all had to drive round in Reliant Robins til they were sensible enough to realise that a car is a killing machine then maybe the urge to be a flah twat might be disapated somewhat!

if you catch my drift...

what's needed is something more than tokenistic legislation and it's to do with a wider social problem than just the manner people drive. people who show or exhibit little respect or politeness in their everyday lives aren't likely to become cannonised for their decent driving....
 
Couldn't disagree more with Stowpirate. IMHO the only thing that woul make the roads safer is a *higher* driving age- 21 for preference.

Many 18/19 year olds can drive very competantly, but use their skills to drive like twats, rather than to drive safely. A higher driving age would do more to cut road deaths than a harder test IMHO.

right because moving the start date for driving improves people road craft experince how?

If you are 1% knowledgeable on a subject from day 1 and only 1.001% on day 365 what exactly is gained by moving the start date of the learing period from 17 to 18 to 21 to 30 .... you will still get exactly the same results from the drivers and their reactions and actions behind the wheel will just have statistically change their demographic not their impact one jot...
 
right because moving the start date for driving improves people road craft experince how?

If you are 1% knowledgeable on a subject from day 1 and only 1.001% on day 365 what exactly is gained by moving the start date of the learing period from 17 to 18 to 21 to 30 .... you will still get exactly the same results from the drivers and their reactions and actions behind the wheel will just have statistically change their demographic not their impact one jot...

I'd imagine the argument is that 21 year olds are generally more mature than 17 year olds and less likely to treat their vehicle as a toy.
This is why we don't let 10 year olds drive. And why we don't often see 40 year olds tearing around in souped-up ricers.
 
You're wasting your time here mate ... Urban 75 is about 90% "[Only] Speed Kills" territory". :( :(

:rolleyes:

Have you ever actually seen anybody try and make this case on this forum? I haven't.

Hey, for that matter did you ever see the police try and enforce one of the spiffy new "20mph" limits in residential streets that we have now in parts of Lambeth? Nope, me neither. I can guarantee you that if you break those limits you won't get any legal hassle at all, probably one of the reasons why everyone does.

(speeding = breaking the law in case you've forgotten)

The fact that you get so testy and defensive on this subject and invent Aunt Sally arguments is (as I've said before) circumstancial evidence for the fact that the typical policeman doesn't give a shit about speeding (yes, I know you're not in the police any more am I supposed to believe this has changed in the days since you were?)
 
Oh and - just for those people pushing the ridiculous idea that anyone is saying that "only speed kills" (apparently as some kind of precursor to the argument that "speeding is fine so long as you're as good a driver as I am"), here's a reference to some "research" about speeding and fatalities.

Taylor et al (2000), "The effect of driver's speed on the frequency of road accidents" Transport Research Laboratory Report 421, Crowthorne TRL.

Among other things, Taylor et al found that there is a general rule that every 1% cut in average speed leads to an average cut in crash frequency of 5% - more on slower urban roads.

But his main finding was that speeding is a "main contributory cause" in about one third of fatal road traffic crashes. A finding echoing many many other such studies.

There is a massive amount of other "research" that backs this up.

Car-drivers who try and make out that speeding is irrelevant to road safety are flying in the face of reality. It's a pity the police have decided to back them up.
 
I'd imagine the argument is that 21 year olds are generally more mature than 17 year olds and less likely to treat their vehicle as a toy.
This is why we don't let 10 year olds drive. And why we don't often see 40 year olds tearing around in souped-up ricers.

nah course yo don't there's no market for m3's GTR3's etc etc... none at all...

oh wait... you mean cars which have been blinged but have all the power enhancements of go faster stripes don't you...

but not an age or class based prejudice in sight is there... :p
 
:rolleyes:

Have you ever actually seen anybody try and make this case on this forum? I haven't.

Hey, for that matter did you ever see the police try and enforce one of the spiffy new "20mph" limits in residential streets that we have now in parts of Lambeth? Nope, me neither. I can guarantee you that if you break those limits you won't get any legal hassle at all, probably one of the reasons why everyone does.

(speeding = breaking the law in case you've forgotten)

The fact that you get so testy and defensive on this subject and invent Aunt Sally arguments is (as I've said before) circumstancial evidence for the fact that the typical policeman doesn't give a shit about speeding (yes, I know you're not in the police any more am I supposed to believe this has changed in the days since you were?)

I trust with this attitude you don't parkate or allow anyone you know to parktake in drugs use... that's breaking the law you know...
 
Oh and - just for those people pushing the ridiculous idea that anyone is saying that "only speed kills" (apparently as some kind of precursor to the argument that "speeding is fine so long as you're as good a driver as I am"), here's a reference to some "research" about speeding and fatalities.

Taylor et al (2000), "The effect of driver's speed on the frequency of road accidents" Transport Research Laboratory Report 421, Crowthorne TRL.

Among other things, Taylor et al found that there is a general rule that every 1% cut in average speed leads to an average cut in crash frequency of 5% - more on slower urban roads.

But his main finding was that speeding is a "main contributory cause" in about one third of fatal road traffic crashes. A finding echoing many many other such studies.

There is a massive amount of other "research" that backs this up.

Car-drivers who try and make out that speeding is irrelevant to road safety are flying in the face of reality. It's a pity the police have decided to back them up.

a massive amount of research to tell people that you're tryign to say that 2 thrids of accidents do not have speed as their contributory factors... Ie the majority of accidents do not have speed as a contributory factor... is what your own unsourced unlinked study claim....

do you understand who presentation of facts works...
 
a massive amount of research to tell people that you're tryign to say that 2 thrids of accidents do not have speed as their contributory factors... Ie the majority of accidents do not have speed as a contributory factor... is what your own unsourced unlinked study claim....

do you understand who presentation of facts works...


Listen you twit, my "unsourced" study is - erm - sourced. I've given you all the information you need to find it and read it. If you knew anything, even a shred about this subject, you'd know that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to back up its findings.

As for "unlinked", tough. You may have to try and look it up yourself. Or even *gasp* go to a library and read it and actually inform yourself on the subject you seem determined to sound off about.

As for your stunning re-analysis that reveals the fact that my evidence that one third of fatal crashes have speed as a main contributory factor means that two thirds don't, words fail me. "No shit, Sherlock" is no longer adequate.

That "one third" means that it's likely that over a thousand people a year are killed in such crashes and may tens or hundreds of thousands crippled.
 
Listen you twit, my "unsourced" study is - erm - sourced. I've given you all the information you need to find it and read it. If you knew anything, even a shred about this subject, you'd know that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to back up its findings.

As for "unlinked", tough. You may have to try and look it up yourself. Or even *gasp* go to a library and read it and actually inform yourself on the subject you seem determined to sound off about.

As for your stunning re-analysis that reveals the fact that my evidence that one third of fatal crashes have speed as a main contributory factor means that two thirds don't, words fail me. "No shit, Sherlock" is no longer adequate.

That "one third" means that it's likely that over a thousand people a year are killed in such crashes and may tens or hundreds of thousands crippled.

then you'll have no problem linking to your study will you... source it or retract it ... it's how debate works, twit...

and the rest of the accidents which are the majority which is the argument your own post is supposed to be argueing against are not caused by speed as the major contributory factor. (ie your arguement is a pro speed kills argument which has been shown consistantly to be in error.)...

but do go on with your unsourced report claims...
 
then you'll have no problem linking to your study will you... source it or retract it ... it's how debate works, twit...

and the rest of the accidents which are the majority which is the argument your own post is supposed to be argueing against are not caused by speed as the major contributory factor. (ie your arguement is a pro speed kills argument which has been shown consistantly to be in error.)...

but do go on with your unsourced report claims...

Garfield, you haven't understood the basics. Perhaps you aren't a twit, at the moment the evidence points in that direction.

Let me help you a little. A "source" is the place whence some cited information comes. Thus I might make a claim in debate - eg "one third of fatal road traffic crashes have speed as a main contributory factory". Then - if I'm real hot shit - I might provide a "source" - that's the place where I got the information from.

That's exactly what I did.

You can challenge the neutrality of my source, or its likely value - perhaps giving reasons for those challenges.

But if you just start banging on about how my source isn't sourced you just make yourself look like a muppet.

Which is exactly what you did.

I've got some more sources for the thesis that speed is dangerous but until you've got your head around the whole concept of what a source is I'll save myself the bother of typing them out.

Hope this is helpful.
 
and the rest of the accidents which are the majority which is the argument your own post is supposed to be argueing against are not caused by speed as the major contributory factor. (ie your arguement is a pro speed kills argument which has been shown consistantly to be in error.)...

Just to clarify, Garfy old boy. I have said "speeding is dangerous". A report which indicates that "one third etc etc" is evidence that supports that claim.

The fact that there are many other causes is irrelevant because I have never said (nor has anyone) that only speed kills. That's a very stupid argument that has only been proposed as a position by people like detective boy, desperate to find an opponent they can vanquish; it's sometimes called an Aunt Sally.

You say that the 'speed kills' thesis has "been shown consistantly to be in error" - now that right there is where you put your source. But you haven't. What a missed opportunity. Perhaps you don't have one?
 
Just to clarify, Garfy old boy. I have said "speeding is dangerous". A report which indicates that "one third etc etc" is evidence that supports that claim.

The fact that there are many other causes is irrelevant because I have never said (nor has anyone) that only speed kills. That's a very stupid argument that has only been proposed as a position by people like detective boy, desperate to find an opponent they can vanquish; it's sometimes called an Aunt Sally.

You say that the 'speed kills' thesis has "been shown consistantly to be in error" - now that right there is where you put your source. But you haven't. What a missed opportunity. Perhaps you don't have one?

there have been consistantly posted stats which show this in the many many threads on urban about speeding might i suggest you search or while your at it look at the DoT study done in 2004 which shows that due to them calculating the mean incorrectly significantly less than a third of accidents which again the major contributory factor around 12.5% ....

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/reviewofthecontributoryfacto.pdf

But if you want to use outdated, unsourced, unspecified documents which make claims which have been puiblicly discredited and now been replaced by the DfT with newer more accurate statistics in order to re-enforce your point go ahead...

It shows how limited your understanding of the matter is...

and also how little you think in reality of the topic past your own prejudical comments...

never the less perhaps it's about time you learned that others aren't here to do your research for you and provide a link or a source for your wildly inaccurate claims or simply retract your nonsense as being unfounded and false... an urban myth if you like...
 
never the less perhaps it's about time you learned that others aren't here to do your research for you and provide a link or a source for your wildly inaccurate claims or simply retract your nonsense as being unfounded and false... an urban myth if you like...


:D

I have provided the source. That's what the Transport Research Laboratory Report IS. A source.

Anyway, Garfield, I retract my comment about you being a twit. You are a gold-plated, copper-bottomed idiot who hasn't begun to understand the concept of "sources" or citations or debate or - well - anything at all really.

In general, when you've dug yourself a hole the rule is to stop digging. Just repeating something endlessly is great if you're doing a metronome impression but in this context it's a sign of stupidity.
 
:D

I have provided the source. That's what the Transport Research Laboratory Report IS. A source.

Anyway, Garfield, I retract my comment about you being a twit. You are a gold-plated, copper-bottomed idiot who hasn't begun to understand the concept of "sources" or citations or debate or - well - anything at all really.

In general, when you've dug yourself a hole the rule is to stop digging. Just repeating something endlessly is great if you're doing a metronome impression but in this context it's a sign of stupidity.

nope sorry still not washing you are using outdate info from a non specified source and have been shown byt later reports to be in capable of understanding statistics in the this area...

you want this to get personal so that the ensuing flame fest allows you to claim you're in the right but you are refusing to provide any checkable source or link to it... demanding others do your research for you and insisting on relying on oudated informaiton admitted to and proven by their own stuides to be entirely inaccurate...

explain excatly what hole i'm digging by pointing out the failure of the information you've provided or that it's merit is significantly drecreased by newer more accurate studies doen specifically on the subject matter...

if you'd be so kind

otherwise once again co-op is rallyign against unseen forces claiming to have 'won' an argument with another poster when the contray is in fact true they have been shown to be entirely without credibility... and their point specious...

I await your usual tiedious pwned messages and other childish retorts you are so fond of...

but shall not be respondinf further to your derailign nonsense until you provide verifiable linkable sources to your claims which are based on reports made after 2004...

when you are ready...
 
there have been consistantly posted stats which show this in the many many threads on urban about speeding might i suggest you search or while your at it look at the DoT study done in 2004 which shows that due to them calculating the mean incorrectly significantly less than a third of accidents which again the major contributory factor around 12.5% ....

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/reviewofthecontributoryfacto.pdf

Now this para is basically incomprehensible gibberish but I'm guessing you are trying to say that your source - the dft report you link to - is saying that far fewer than 33% of fatal crashes have speeding as a main contributory factor - perhaps you are saying that "only" 12.5% have speeding as a mian factor?

Unfortunately your citation is utter bollocks. It's a fascinating report but it is making no attempt anywhere to break actual crashes down into their various causes.

No. It is trying to analyse the various procedures whereby the police might try and do this in order to gain consistency between the various police forces and also general accuracy as to causes.

Interestingly I see that in the "Background" section of the Executive Summary, the basis for this review is some research that was carried out by the "Transport Research Laboratory". Yes that's right! The very same TRL that I cited, whose research indicates that 33% etc etc...

Aaaanyway, the TRL were commissioned by the DfT in 1995 to investigate allocation of contributory causes by different police forces and to see which methods were best etc. This Review (ie the one you so proudly cite) is an investigation of that analysis, its purpose is to

"(a) to review the existing national contributory factors system, and
b) to provide recommendations for possible improvements to the existing National System
and to recommend ways to secure nationwide implementation."


So it is not even trying to work out what percentage of crashes are caused by speeding.

The only real reference to speed is that only "three issues were of
particular significance: speed, inattention and behavioural factors"
so those factors were the ones considered in most depth. Sort of circumstantial evidence for the fact that it's a bit of an issue I'd have said?

As is the statement - also from the report you cite that "There were conflicting views about the need for two separate speed factors (e.g.
‘Inappropriate speed for the conditions’ and ‘Speed in excess of the limit’), but there was
general consensus that the current factor coded simply as ‘Excessive speed’ gave
insufficient weight to the problems associated with speeding".


But your report doesn't do what you think it does. Read before citing next time Dumbo.
 
nope sorry still not washing you are using outdate info from a non specified source and have been shown byt later reports to be in capable of understanding statistics in the this area...

you want this to get personal so that the ensuing flame fest allows you to claim you're in the right but you are refusing to provide any checkable source or link to it... demanding others do your research for you and insisting on relying on oudated informaiton admitted to and proven by their own stuides to be entirely inaccurate...

explain excatly what hole i'm digging by pointing out the failure of the information you've provided or that it's merit is significantly drecreased by newer more accurate studies doen specifically on the subject matter...

if you'd be so kind

otherwise once again co-op is rallyign against unseen forces claiming to have 'won' an argument with another poster when the contray is in fact true they have been shown to be entirely without credibility... and their point specious...

I await your usual tiedious pwned messages and other childish retorts you are so fond of...

but shall not be respondinf further to your derailign nonsense until you provide verifiable linkable sources to your claims which are based on reports made after 2004...

when you are ready...

I don't particularly revel in flame fests, I'm feeling a little sorry for you to be honest, but you are talking such transparent nonsense that it's hard to be complimentary. You haven't understood the concept of a "source" or you'd have realised by now - having had it pointed out to you several times - that I've given you one. And I've got loads more where that came from - but why would I bother typing them out if you don't get the whole idea??

You've also posted a link to a report which investigates crash investigation procedure but contains absolutely no hard data relating to actual contributory causes of crashes (although as I've pointed out it names speed as one of the big three causes) - and your cited report is also based on work carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory who are commissioned on a regular basis by the DfT to do this kind of work - and are exactly the same people as did the work I've cited.

More than this I cannot say.

Does anyone else find it difficult or impossible to follow the points I am making? Can anyone else work out wtf GleC is on about?
 
my report which shows your thrid claim to be false is dated 2004 some 9 years after your report ... and is the most currently avaiable piece of data on teh subject...

but do go on claiming black is white up is down and making up claims from your now 13 year old document, which isn't online line at all appernetly and therefore cannot be linked to...

It's a fascinating report but it is making no attempt anywhere to break actual crashes down into their various causes.

except section 3.6 does precisely that mr can't read past the excutive summary...

Interestingly I see that in the "Background" section of the Executive Summary, the basis for this review is some research that was carried out by the "Transport Research Laboratory". Yes that's right! The very same TRL that I cited, whose research indicates that 33%

well quite would you have me match the source with something which was of a different nonbiased resoruce inorder to have you bithc that it was not as vaild a soruce of evidnece....

and that link for the doucment making any such 33% claim would be...

nonexisttant would that be because all previous copies of the now 13 year old report have been pullped as the later research shows that the information continated with in the studies was inaccurate and flawed... yes that would be the reason you are in capable fo finding it on line...

of course there would be countless other refferencing srouces of this statisitic if it were still vaild yet there are not...

the report cited also goes on to correct inaccuracies and faults with the 1995 report again anothe rreason it was cited to show you directly using similar techniques and info gathering process to show your 33% claim is entirely inaccurate...

but do carry on with this nonsense...
 
I'm also inclined to agree with the idea that you should have to have some kind plate after passing for a period of time (although not 100% on that), it helps no end knowing that other drivers will make allowances for you given your skill/driving level.

Having witnessed how most drivers in big, brand new cars react to small, older cars on the motorway (tailgating, undertaking, you name it), I'm seriously considering not using those P plates after I take my test later this year, to give no-one more a clue, or rather an "excuse" to cut me up :(
 
Having witnessed how most drivers in big, brand new cars react to small, older cars on the motorway (tailgating, undertaking, you name it), I'm seriously considering not using those P plates after I take my test later this year, to give no-one more a clue, or rather an "excuse" to cut me up :(

there's no legal reason to do so and you wont be given any more credibitlity on the raod for wearing them as you've passed your test therefore are uttelry responsiblie fo your actions in the car or your are a learner in which case your companion is...

they get you nothing and do nothing and have no legal significance...

drive sensibly appropreately and considerately and you'll be fine without any plates, provided you've passed your test...
 
my report which shows your thrid claim to be false is dated 2004 some 9 years after your report ... and is the most currently avaiable piece of data on teh subject...

but do go on claiming black is white up is down and making up claims from your now 13 year old document, which isn't online line at all appernetly and therefore cannot be linked to...



except section 3.6 does precisely that mr can't read past the excutive summary..


well quite would you have me match the source with something which was of a different nonbiased resoruce inorder to have you bithc that it was not as vaild a soruce of evidnece....

and that link for the doucment making any such 33% claim would be...

nonexisttant would that be because all previous copies of the now 13 year old report have been pullped as the later research shows that the information continated with in the studies was inaccurate and flawed... yes that would be the reason you are in capable fo finding it on line...

of course there would be countless other refferencing srouces of this statisitic if it were still vaild yet there are not...

the report cited also goes on to correct inaccuracies and faults with the 1995 report again anothe rreason it was cited to show you directly using similar techniques and info gathering process to show your 33% claim is entirely inaccurate...

but do carry on with this nonsense...

OK - I'm no longer addressing Garfield because I think he may be insane. But if anyone else needs this lengthy post of shite dissecting I'll willingly do it. I suspect that somewhere in the cloudy recesses of his head Garfield knows that he is talking the most arrant shite but has decided that if he just keeps ploughing ahead he may be able to bore the thread into extinction.

Just to give a flavour of the dumbness level; Garfield answers my point that there is no attempt in his cited report to break down crashes into their contributory causes (why would there be? - the entire report is about something else) by proudly boasting that it does do this - in section 3.6.

Sadly it doesn't. Yes there is a list of contributory causes. And yes there is a little percentage figure after each one.

How his little heart must have jumped for joy when he saw that! But the little percentage figure is relating to how many of the different police forces own systems use the various different headings of contributory factors - NOT how many crashes are caused by that factor...

Jeez. And it doesn't mention speed once. Why? because that's in the National System so...oh forget it.

Garfield I think you are the weirdest poster I have ever come across on the internet.
 
if you aren't going to cite your source appropreately so it can be discussed and show that your points aren't based in fact but in the reality as you see it then there can be no further disucssion of your nonsense...

again you are deliberately misreading the information given...

so for the final time really as you are too stubborn to admit it...

the actualy link to your claimed source please...
 
and that link for the doucment making any such 33% claim would be...

nonexisttant would that be because all previous copies of the now 13 year old report have been pullped as the later research shows that the information continated with in the studies was inaccurate and flawed... yes that would be the reason you are in capable fo finding it on line...

of course there would be countless other refferencing srouces of this statisitic if it were still vaild yet there are not...

For anyone who has waded through all this drivel, just on a point of fact my "13 year-old" report (published in 2000) from which I drew the "one third" figure has certainly not been pulped. And of course it has been routinely and regularly referenced as a source all over the place, just type "Taylor, Lynam Baruya Transport Research Laboratory" into Google and you'll find it cited in literally hundreds of other reports.

I could provide another dozen sources of equal authority. Well, I say "equal" - I'd guess the TRL is rated as one of the best sources there is - but maybe "comparable" authority. Respected, peer-reviewed academic research, that sort of thing.

Garfield meanwhile is resting his mighty case on a report that isn't even about what percentage of crashes are caused by various contributory factors but about how to standardise reporting of these factors in order to provide some national consistency in the data set. Don't get me wrong, that's a super project. It's just it's talking about something else.

He laso can't understand a table of figures when it stares him in the face as his bizarre "triumph" over s.3.6 shows...
 
if you aren't going to cite your source appropreately so it can be discussed and show that your points aren't based in fact but in the reality as you see it then there can be no further disucssion of your nonsense...
...

:D

Please someone tell me this is a wind-up.
 
Back
Top Bottom