Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Another long road closure by TVP

Posted by: gel Feb 12 2013, 05:57 PM

I still find hard to compehend, even when crash is fatal, why TVP feel justified in keeping main route in Reading closed, for half a day.

Surely they could gather enough evidence after just a few hours; I recall they invested in some new laser measuring equipment recently so closures would be for less duration?



It was total unnecessary loss of life caused by young driver feeling invincible it seems,
ignoring police directions to stop.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277553/Teenager-dies-catapulted-car-car-somersaulted-road-police-chase.html#axzz2KhxwYavi

Posted by: user23 Feb 12 2013, 07:51 PM

I'm not an expert. How long does it take to do a detailed crash investigation?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 12 2013, 08:09 PM

Probably around half a day.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 12 2013, 08:17 PM

Is it wrong to find one's self thinking "good, that's one less idiot on the road"?

Or is it just old age creeping in?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 12 2013, 09:09 PM

Not sure it's anything to do with age, you just sound mean.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 12 2013, 09:12 PM

I guess they will close a road for as long as it takes to cover up any evidence against them.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 12 2013, 09:13 PM

Given today's compensation culture and the long and tedious arguments after the event I'm not surprised the Police want the full Monty evidence wise. Simply covering backsides!

Posted by: motormad Feb 13 2013, 12:51 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 12 2013, 09:09 PM) *
Not sure it's anything to do with age, you just sound mean.


Kind of mean.
It was a shame to lose a young life and it's a bit of a stupid thing to have happened. Although it's stupid, it's not on the same level as that Ford River Crossing thing.

Aside from the questionable comments of "just another young driver thinking they are invincible", because yes, running from the police makes you feel invincible..... ???? rolleyes.gif
We do not know the circumstances surrounding the accident. Who knows what has gone on?
On an unrelated note that looks like it's on the A33 near the new development, it's basically a straight road... how do you manage to crash there lol.

The comments on the Daily Mail infuriate me, I'd like to really see the kind of racist slash biggot slash communist person who takes any pleasure in reading anything posted on their website or printed in their paper, or posting on their message boards. Yeah, no seatbelt, ohhh bet no insurance, ohhhh young drivers tearing it up everywhere, ohhhh this and that, makes me want to drive my car into their living room (not that I would tongue.gif) and frankly as a young driver (there is no correlation between age and quality of driving let's remember) I'm sort of sick of the barage of hatred we get.
Just wait till 3am and I sit outside your house on the rev limiter, then you can get angry. But the majority of us just want to have fun sitting peacefully in a car park drinking fizzy beverages.

There are times where it's better for the police to just back off and leave it because in most cases cars are quite easily traceable and Reading has a big infrastructure of cameras for road monitoring so it's not like they would not have found him.

However I'm not going to stray away from the fact that matey driving it should have pulled over in the first instance and there's no excuse for not doing so. That is also a major trunk road (basically the only way in and out of Reading from the motorway side) and 12 hours is a stupidly long amount of time. At the end of the day no-one else was reported as being involved, there should be video evidence on the police car (assuming it's a traffic car as I don't think Panda cars can actually engage in a "chase") - and well it does not take 12 hours to say "yup, the car crashed here and ended up here" and take a few photos.


Posted by: Biker1 Feb 13 2013, 09:43 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 02:51 AM) *
However I'm not going to stray away from the fact that matey driving it should have pulled over in the first instance and there's no excuse for not doing so.

And therein lies the crux of the whole matter.

Posted by: Gooner72 Feb 13 2013, 12:35 PM

If the originally story is read properly, the IPCC is involved and they will manage the investigation, it will ultimately be their decision how long the road is closed for.

I am sure it has been said previosuly on this forum and in others, if it was your son or daughter involved, you would want a very thorough and detailed investigation done, yes I appreciate this inconveniences people going about their daily business, but at least they are alive and well and able to still go about their business, all be it a little delayed!!

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 13 2013, 01:35 PM

Although it's stupid, it's not on the same level as that Ford River Crossing thing.


Quite correct. Ignoring a police request to stop is far, far more stupid than mis-judging the depth of water at a ford you are unfamiliar with.


Posted by: biggus_richus Feb 13 2013, 02:02 PM

Latest reports suggest that it wasn't "just" a collision; the driver performed a u-turn, crashed into the central reservation, was thrown from his vehicle and then hit by one or more pursuing polices vehicles.

Hardly surprising that the road was closed for so long for investigations to be carried out.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 13 2013, 03:15 PM

Ah, the folly of youth, still, could have been worse, might of hurt an innocent member of the public.

Posted by: motormad Feb 13 2013, 06:48 PM

Yes, the folly of the Youth. It could have easily been someone with hair growing out of their ears.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 13 2013, 01:35 PM) *
Although it's stupid, it's not on the same level as that Ford River Crossing thing.


Quite correct. Ignoring a police request to stop is far, far more stupid than mis-judging the depth of water at a ford you are unfamiliar with.


That is arguable.
I believe it's more stupid to drive into a Ford than it is to run away. Choosing to run from the police is a concious decision, you don't do it on Autopilot unlike the people in the ford story(stories) we have read so much about.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 13 2013, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 06:48 PM) *
Yes, the folly of the Youth. It could have easily been someone with hair growing out of their ears.



That is arguable.
I believe it's more stupid to drive into a Ford than it is to run away. Choosing to run from the police is a concious decision, you don't do it on Autopilot unlike the people in the ford story(stories) we have read so much about.

So because you decide to do something that makes it more acceptable, less stupid.

ergo - If I decide to swerve in order to hit a cat in the road, that is less stupid than hitting a cat because I didn't see it.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 13 2013, 08:37 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 12:51 AM) *
..(there is no correlation between age and quality of driving let's remember) ..


There is lots of correlation between age and quality of driving - statistically young males are significantly more likely to be involved in accidents than any other group. Which is why they find insurance so expensive.

Posted by: newres Feb 13 2013, 08:51 PM

Funny, another TVP thread by Gel.

The police love a good chase. This causes many deaths each year. In most cases they should not persue in my opinion.

To those lacking sympathy, he was little more than a child. Misguided obviously.

Posted by: motormad Feb 13 2013, 09:13 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 13 2013, 07:42 PM) *
So because you decide to do something that makes it more acceptable, less stupid.

ergo - If I decide to swerve in order to hit a cat in the road, that is less stupid than hitting a cat because I didn't see it.


Uhhh.. what?

My point is, deciding to run from the police is dumb.
Driving into a Ford (you know, a big body of water with an unknown depth especially after at the end of basically the wettest year since "records began"!) at such a speed that you get stuck or worse killed because your Sat-Nav says it's fine is stupid.

And on an unrelated note, where do cats come into this? A cat is a small furry object which is cute and fluffy which perhaps at night might be hard to see. A large body of water on the other hand would be akin to driving into a Blue Whale which on the other hand is not cute and fluffy and infact rather ugly, that being said it's never the answer on QI either.


QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 13 2013, 08:37 PM) *
There is lots of correlation between age and quality of driving - statistically young males are significantly more likely to be involved in accidents than any other group. Which is why they find insurance so expensive.


Okay, and what's the average age of perhaps the World Rally Championship field, or the Formula 1 field? Not going to be in your 30s, let me tell you!!

Just because you are involved in an accident does not mean you are a "bad" driver. Perhaps less "safe", yes, and as we know, just because you have a crash does not make you a bad driver.

I know some absolutely terrible drivers who have never had an accident, purely by luck, and yet some of the best drivers I know have been unfortunate enough to be involved in some, this time by bad luck.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 13 2013, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 09:13 PM) *
Uhhh.. what?



Ah, I didn't realise that this was a semantics debate.


Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 13 2013, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 09:13 PM) *
My point is, deciding to run from the police is dumb.
Driving into a Ford (you know, a big body of water with an unknown depth especially after at the end of basically the wettest year since "records began"!) at such a speed that you get stuck or worse killed because your Sat-Nav says it's fine is stupid.

Dumb and stupid mean much the same in this argument.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 09:13 PM) *
I know some absolutely terrible drivers who have never had an accident, purely by luck, and yet some of the best drivers I know have been unfortunate enough to be involved in some, this time by bad luck.

Knowing some good or bad drivers doesn't get away from the statistic that younger drivers have more 'accidents'.

Posted by: motormad Feb 13 2013, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 13 2013, 09:31 PM) *
Dumb and stupid mean much the same in this argument.


Almost. Not quite. While neither are forgivable people do panic, of they over-react and run. Which is dumb. A lesser form of stupid which is to drive your car into what is basically the South Sea! laugh.gif
QUOTE
Knowing some good or bad drivers doesn't get away from the statistic that younger drivers have more 'accidents'.


I accepted that, didn't I? I just said that there is no correlation between "quality" of driving or being a "good" driver and the amount of accidents you have.
As I made the point that not all young drivers are bad drivers, to which a comment (which is a fair observation) regarding the amount of accidents they have was made. I was simply making the point that accident vs quality is not a plottable chart.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 13 2013, 10:10 PM

It's the old balance of nature thing, more young'uns have accidents so it thins out the the idiots, fittest survive.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 13 2013, 10:34 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 10:07 PM) *
Almost. Not quite. While neither are forgivable people do panic, of they over-react and run. Which is dumb. A lesser form of stupid which is to drive your car into what is basically the South Sea! laugh.gif


"There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics…Cretins don’t even talk; they sort of slobber and stumble…Fools are in great demand, especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation…Fools don’t claim that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else is talking about dogs. They offend all the rules of conversation, and when they really offend, they’re magnificent…Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says that all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, therefore cats bark…Morons will occasionally say something that’s right, but they say it for the wrong reason…A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars…There are lunatics who don’t bring up the Templars, but those who do are the most insidious. At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden…”

Posted by: motormad Feb 13 2013, 10:43 PM

And by that post, you'd just be a Fool and I be a Lunatic.
Or maybe just a ****.

???

Again with MM's forum famous "guess the meaning of the four stars!" game.

Posted by: motormad Feb 13 2013, 10:48 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Feb 13 2013, 10:10 PM) *
It's the old balance of nature thing, more young'uns have accidents so it thins out the the idiots, fittest survive.


But then who will pay for your social care?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 13 2013, 10:52 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 13 2013, 08:51 PM) *
Funny, another TVP thread by Gel.

The police love a good chase. This causes many deaths each year. In most cases they should not persue in my opinion.

To those lacking sympathy, he was little more than a child. Misguided obviously.



Aaah some sanity! What the Police did beforehand was undoubtedly right but was it wise?

Of course, none of us oldies can remember doing anything reckless in our youth.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 13 2013, 11:10 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 10:07 PM) *
Almost. Not quite. While neither are forgivable people do panic, of they over-react and run. Which is dumb. A lesser form of stupid which is to drive your car into what is basically the South Sea! laugh.gif

What a load of Bollox.


QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 10:07 PM) *
I accepted that, didn't I? I just said that there is no correlation between "quality" of driving or being a "good" driver and the amount of accidents you have.
As I made the point that not all young drivers are bad drivers, to which a comment (which is a fair observation) regarding the amount of accidents they have was made. I was simply making the point that accident vs quality is not a plottable chart.

On average, better drivers have fewer accidents.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 13 2013, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 10:48 PM) *
But then who will pay for your social care?



You do that yourself.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 13 2013, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 10:43 PM) *
And by that post, you'd just be a Fool and I be a Lunatic.
Or maybe just a ****.

???

Again with MM's forum famous "guess the meaning of the four stars!" game.

Give us a clue.

Posted by: motormad Feb 13 2013, 11:31 PM

No.

And oh. (About the Social care).


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 13 2013, 11:10 PM) *
What a load of Bollox.

That's your onion.

QUOTE
On average, better drivers have fewer accidents.


On average according to what? Can you provide any statistics?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 14 2013, 03:23 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 11:31 PM) *
On average according to what? Can you provide any statistics?

"...advanced drivers are 25% less likely to be involved in an accident"

http://www.roadartvg.org.uk/

Posted by: On the edge Feb 14 2013, 06:33 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 14 2013, 03:23 AM) *
"...advanced drivers are 25% less likely to be involved in an accident"

http://www.roadartvg.org.uk/


Just an aside, some very interesting information is starting to emerge, which re writes received wisdom.
- The number of new young drivers is falling; possibly due to high insurance and lack of employment opportunity
- The age profile of skilled motorists (those in several schemes) is getting lower
- The accidents where old drivers are responsible are slightly lower but are far more deadly and serious
Once we get to a certain age, the lower test standards and our far lower ability to react, kicks in to deadly effect.

So there some interesting policy considerations necessary as in future, less people will drive....

Posted by: JeffG Feb 14 2013, 09:39 AM

Re post #23: in case someone thinks dannyboy has suddenly developed a literary talent, that was plagiarised from Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 09:46 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 14 2013, 03:23 AM) *
"...advanced drivers are 25% less likely to be involved in an accident"

http://www.roadartvg.org.uk/


Okay and where does mention anything about age vs driving ability? All that says is that "after passing our test which costs a lot of money" (I know having done the motorcycle equivalent) you are 25% less likely to crash.
No mention of age which was my original point.

Outside of the fact that shuffling the wheel makes you a bit of a berk and reduces your ability to correct slides..

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2013, 09:58 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 14 2013, 09:39 AM) *
Re post #23: in case someone thinks dannyboy has suddenly developed a literary talent, that was plagiarised from Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

We know.

Why do you think I stuck it in italiacs & quotation marks? I copied it . To plagarise is palm off someone else's work as your own.....

..... which is, ironically ( as anyone whos actually read the book instead of searching for the quote on google would know ) what Dan Brown did with his execrable 'Da Vinci Code' . Baigent & Lincoln had in turn had their ideas lampooned by Eco, but oddly they decided to sue Brown & ignored Eco's book possibly as Brown was a multi millionarie on the back of their efforts & Eco was just a humble professor of Semiotics at Milan University.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 14 2013, 10:49 AM

Who are "we"? Yes it was obvious it was a quotation, and no I have not read the book (presumably I am the only one reading this forum who hasn't), but I know enough that it's usual practice to credit a quotation.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2013, 10:58 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 14 2013, 10:49 AM) *
Who are "we"? Yes it was obvious it was a quotation, and no I have not read the book (presumably I am the only one reading this forum who hasn't), but I know enough that it's usual practice to credit a quotation.

Credit it - and spoil the chance for someone to have a dig!?! Where is the fun in that.

So it was 'obvious it was a quotation' but you still felt the need to point this out? To whom?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 14 2013, 01:19 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 09:46 AM) *
Okay and where does mention anything about age vs driving ability? All that says is that "after passing our test which costs a lot of money" (I know having done the motorcycle equivalent) you are 25% less likely to crash.
No mention of age which was my original point.

So? You asked a question, I gave an answer. Perhaps you should back your assertion up with some facts?

Young drivers are more likely to involved in an accident, that is all I wish to say.

There are many ways to evaluate a good driver, my view is a good driver is a safe one. One that doesn't pratt about.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 09:46 AM) *
Outside of the fact that shuffling the wheel makes you a bit of a berk and reduces your ability to correct slides..

Only if your driving isn't up to scratch. If you slide, you have lost control and failed to respond to the conditions.

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 02:35 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 14 2013, 01:19 PM) *
So? You asked a question, I gave an answer. Perhaps you should back your assertion up with some facts?

I didn't state any facts. You brought up the "older drivers are better drivers" thing.

Young drivers are more likely to involved in an accident, that is all I wish to say.

QUOTE
Only if your driving isn't up to scratch. If you slide, you have lost control and failed to respond to the conditions.


Errr.... No.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2013, 02:41 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 02:35 PM) *
If you slide, you have lost control and failed to respond to the conditions.


Errr.... No.

On the open road yes. Driving like Jezza is fine on a track, but that isn't what this discussion is about.

Saw some twerp in a vintage mustang a few weeks back on the London road. He floored it out of the BP garage so that the car fishtailed to almost 90° to the kerb, luckily for him he was able to correct the slide & wheel spin it towards the B&Q roundabout.

Not good drving on the open road at all, but gave the boy racers also in the BP garage a quick thrill....

Posted by: On the edge Feb 14 2013, 03:10 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 14 2013, 10:49 AM) *
Who are "we"? Yes it was obvious it was a quotation, and no I have not read the book (presumably I am the only one reading this forum who hasn't), but I know enough that it's usual practice to credit a quotation.


Royalty, JeffG, Royalty. Remember we are the Royal County of Berkshire so Dannyboy is simply keeping up with the Jonese or the Middletons, or whoever! laugh.gif

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 14 2013, 02:41 PM) *
On the open road yes. Driving like Jezza is fine on a track, but that isn't what this discussion is about.

Saw some twerp in a vintage mustang a few weeks back on the London road. He floored it out of the BP garage so that the car fishtailed to almost 90° to the kerb, luckily for him he was able to correct the slide & wheel spin it towards the B&Q roundabout.

Not good drving on the open road at all, but gave the boy racers also in the BP garage a quick thrill....


Oh no, I agree.
It's dangerous yes, but the fact if you have initiated a drift and controlled it, and recovered, you have clearly been able to control the situation.. Otherwise you would have crashed.
I saw a guy in an M5 do a drift around a roundabout in Reading, it was dangerous and stupid but was it bad driving, no. It was a fantastic piece of car control.


Posted by: massifheed Feb 14 2013, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 02:35 PM) *
I didn't state any facts.


Apart from here...

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 13 2013, 12:51 AM) *
there is no correlation between age and quality of driving let's remember




Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 14 2013, 03:49 PM) *
Apart from here...


That's not a fact though is it?
It's common sense.

There is no statistic for "quality of driving", whether you are a good driver or a bad one.
There is simply crash rates per age group.

Which is not, as I have said, any indication of quality of driving at all.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2013, 05:07 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 03:22 PM) *
Oh no, I agree.
It's dangerous yes, but the fact if you have initiated a drift and controlled it, and recovered, you have clearly been able to control the situation.. Otherwise you would have crashed.
I saw a guy in an M5 do a drift around a roundabout in Reading, it was dangerous and stupid but was it bad driving, no. It was a fantastic piece of car control.

case closed.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 14 2013, 06:12 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 03:22 PM) *
Oh no, I agree.
It's dangerous yes, but the fact if you have initiated a drift and controlled it, and recovered, you have clearly been able to control the situation.. Otherwise you would have crashed.
I saw a guy in an M5 do a drift around a roundabout in Reading, it was dangerous and stupid but was it bad driving, no. It was a fantastic piece of car control.

Until you get it wrong in front of your gurning mates, then someone dies.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 14 2013, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 04:33 PM) *
That's not a fact though is it?
It's common sense.

There is no statistic for "quality of driving", whether you are a good driver or a bad one.
There is simply crash rates per age group.

Which is not, as I have said, any indication of quality of driving at all.

If true, you are not in a position to posit your comment either. However, when people say young drivers, they normally mean young and inexperienced. No one fact will determine quality on it's own, but young male adults tend to be less risk averse and are more likely to 'show-off'. Two factors that will increase the risk of being involved in an accident. Of course, other factors in other age groups can have a detrimental affect, BUT insurance companies charge in accordance to a risk assessment, and young drivers are a higher risk.

As for your idea about controlling skids, I suspect it is more about luck than judgement. People tend not to want to crash their car and usually one's corrective actions are more likely to be an act of instinctive desperation.

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 07:43 PM

Andy, any time I make a point you just brush it off... EG the ability to control a sliding car, it's not instinct, it's a skill that takes practise.
As I said, none of that what you have mentioned is relating to my point which is that there is no way to judge quality of driving based on age. Risk of crashing, yes, but driving ABILITY, no.

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Feb 14 2013, 06:12 PM) *
Until you get it wrong in front of your gurning mates, then someone dies.


Which does happen unfortunately.

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 07:43 PM

Double post, oopsie.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 14 2013, 08:07 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 03:22 PM) *
Oh no, I agree.
It's dangerous yes, but the fact if you have initiated a drift and controlled it, and recovered, you have clearly been able to control the situation.. Otherwise you would have crashed.
I saw a guy in an M5 do a drift around a roundabout in Reading, it was dangerous and stupid but was it bad driving, no. It was a fantastic piece of car control.



Are you serious?

Jeeeeeez, I doubt he was older than 12

Posted by: x2lls Feb 14 2013, 08:13 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 07:43 PM) *
Andy, any time I make a point you just brush it off... 1 * EG the ability to control a sliding car, it's not instinct, it's a skill that takes practise.As I said, none of that what you have mentioned is relating to my point which is that there is no way to judge quality of driving based on age. Risk of crashing, yes, but driving ABILITY, no.



2 * Which does happen unfortunately.


1 * If he was that clever he would know the basics, don't do stupid and dumb things on public roads!!!!!!!!

2 * Andy rests his case


wink.gif sad.gif You can try a guess at which one is dumb or stupid!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 14 2013, 08:30 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 07:43 PM) *
Andy, any time I make a point you just brush it off...

Often that is because you 'shoot from the hip'.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 07:43 PM) *
EG the ability to control a sliding car, it's not instinct, it's a skill that takes practise.

Unless one drives around skidding everywhere (dangerous), few can afford the time and money to train for it. Cheap, better, and safer, is just to bloody slow down and drive to the conditions.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 07:43 PM) *
As I said, none of that what you have mentioned is relating to my point which is that there is no way to judge quality of driving based on age. Risk of crashing, yes, but driving ABILITY, no.

You didn't read properly what I said. I said young drivers is usually short for 'young and inexperienced'. Most people have more accidents when they are young. And in most cases I suspect most were avoidable. Driving ability is meaningless if you are a risk taker and are showing off. At the end of the day most people are average drivers, and as you get older, and dare I say more mature, you are likely to take more care driving. I'm not say anecdotally, but statistically.

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 14 2013, 08:30 PM) *
Often that is because you 'shoot from the hip'.


I have steady aim pro. And luckily as I also have rapid fire, none of my bullets have the chance to oxidise..................................................

QUOTE
Unless one drives around skidding everywhere (dangerous), few can afford the time and money to train for it. Cheap, better, and safer, is just to bloody slow down and drive to the conditions.


It's not really that hard to do...depends on skill level.


QUOTE
You didn't read properly what I said. I said young drivers is usually short for 'young and inexperienced'. Most people have more accidents when they are young. And in most cases I suspect most were avoidable. Driving ability is meaningless if you are a risk taker and are showing off. At the end of the day most people are average drivers, and as you get older, and dare I say more mature, you are likely to take more care driving. I'm not say anecdotally, but statistically.


And some of what you have said is fair which is not what we're actually discussing, which is my point - At first you say that young drivers are bad.
And now it's that young drivers are inexperienced.
And now young drivers are all risk takers and people who are showing off.

So in the course of 24 hours you've seemingly changed your standpoint thrice?
An FYI, the M5 guy was about 40 as I chatted to him when he pulled into the meet that was going on at the Reading Retail Park. He competes in the D1GP in a Nissan 200sx in his spare time.
Notice I'm not saying that it was "safe" but he was in control and knew what he was doing.
And there-in lies the difference.

So here is what it boils down to in my opinion (which is of course completely correct....)

Age has no reflection of the "quality" of your driving.
Young drivers and the elderly are statistically more likely to crash than those between the ages of 25 and 60.
Having an accident does not make you a bad driver
Not having an accident does not make you a good driver.
Sliding your car is not a dangerous action in itself.
Not all young drivers who crash do so showing off infront of their mates.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 14 2013, 10:55 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
It's not really that hard to do...depends on skill level.

You are stating the bleedin' obvious here, although earlier you said it took skill and practice.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
And some of what you have said is fair which is not what we're actually discussing, which is my point - At first you say that young drivers are bad.

Would you show me where I said that?

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
And now it's that young drivers are inexperienced.

Which I think is obvious. You cannot hone your skills without practice (experience), can you?

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
And now young drivers are all risk takers and people who are showing off.

Again, I ask, where did I say 'all drivers' are risk-taking show-offs

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
So in the course of 24 hours you've seemingly changed your standpoint thrice?

After you remove your inaccurate reporting of what I have said, I see little contradiction to be honest. I started by saying young drivers are more likely to have an accident, I then went on to suggest reasons why.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
An FYI, the M5 guy was about 40 as I chatted to him when he pulled into the meet that was going on at the Reading Retail Park. He competes in the D1GP in a Nissan 200sx in his spare time.
Notice I'm not saying that it was "safe" but he was in control and knew what he was doing.

Everyone is in control until something goes wrong; a bit of diesel, a blow-out. The public highway is not a place to demonstrate such skill. While he might know how to 'drift', he seems to lack the sense to avoid such activity in public.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
Age has no reflection of the "quality" of your driving.

Of course it has an effect, especially at the extremities of age, when physical condition and mental acumen alter.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 10:17 PM) *
Having an accident does not make you a bad driver
Not having an accident does not make you a good driver.
Sliding your car is not a dangerous action in itself.
Not all young drivers who crash do so showing off infront of their mates.

In isolation that might be true, but some of us were considering a group of people.

Posted by: motormad Feb 14 2013, 11:11 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 14 2013, 10:55 PM) *
You are stating the bleedin' obvious here, although earlier you said it took skill and practice.


Some people are naturally more able.
It takes a level of skill and practise but that skill does not need to come at great cost. There are plenty of flat open spaces which are abandoned to practise on. Alternatively the driveway of someone you don't like very much

QUOTE
Would you show me where I said that?


Why do I need to go back and show you things you've written?


QUOTE
Which I think is obvious. You cannot hone your skills without practice (experience), can you?


Again, not true. Regarding young drivers, some are just "able" to drive. I know a guy who had no driving lessons and passed first time. I had 3 but then I had been riding bikes for 2 years.
There is a level of "natural" ability drummed into everyone for certain things.. some people just have a "knack" for driving, those who can drive "in their sleep" rather than those who have to "actively concentrate" rather than be passively concentrating, if that makes sense. Some of us don't need to put a lot of brainpower into driving because it's second nature. But for example asking me to do anything vaugely electrical will likely result in a fire.

My point is that a lot of young drivers get tarnished with the same brush, which is that we are all idiots and do handbrake turns in McDonalds car parks in our Citroen Saxo's but it's so out of touch with reality, while those of a more ripe age sit there passing judgement.
This kid in the OP is dead and had it been a middle aged man, it would have been a sea of "oh no, oh dear, what a shame", but it's some teenager, oh, must have been doing 150 miles an hour and driving like a complete idiot, how dare he...
I've also heard (not read, mind) reports that the kid was actually killed by a police car running him over after being thrown from the vehicle.

My bed is calling me.


Posted by: dannyboy Feb 14 2013, 11:52 PM

crickey - ain't you two got nuthin' better to do on Valentines, or should you two just get a room.........

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 15 2013, 01:20 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 14 2013, 11:52 PM) *
crickey - ain't you two got nuthin' better to do on Valentines, or should you two just get a room.........

Oh dear ... here comes the law! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 15 2013, 01:25 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 11:11 PM) *
Why do I need to go back and show you things you've written?

You don't need to. Indeed, it would be pointless as in this case as what you previously posted said was not true.

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 11:11 PM) *
Again, not true. Regarding young drivers...blah, blah

'Again' not true? Moi?

Posted by: Amelie Feb 15 2013, 10:09 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 14 2013, 11:11 PM) *
had it been a middle aged man, it would have been a sea of "oh no, oh dear, what a shame",


No it wouldn't. It would still be along the lines of "Shame, but one less twit on the road"

Posted by: motormad Feb 15 2013, 11:27 AM

Well, I agree. But that's what I would have said. However what some of the posters here would have said would have been along the lines of what I mentioned..

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 15 2013, 01:20 AM) *
Oh dear ... here comes the law! rolleyes.gif


rolleyes.gif indeed.

laugh.gif

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 11:42 AM

QUOTE (Amelie @ Feb 15 2013, 10:09 AM) *
No it wouldn't. It would still be along the lines of "Shame, but one less twit on the road"


This is rather sad.

As far as I can make out SIX police were involved in this chase; why? Yes of course we have to stop law breakers and particularly those who might endanger others. In this case, when it all started, was that really likely? Would it not have been better to have planned an implemented a calmer and more considered means to stop this diver? I'm beginning to wonder what the Police actually need helicopters and radios for.

This is all much more and politically correct fun than dealing with complaints about status dogs, or clearing aggressive drunks from Newbury station, etc. etc.

Posted by: massifheed Feb 15 2013, 12:23 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 15 2013, 11:42 AM) *
In this case, when it all started, was that really likely?


No-one knows. The police will react to the situation in front of them at the time. I'd rather see the police actively pursuing dangerous drivers who try and flee than having a policy of not giving pursuit in case the offender injures themselves. What kind of message does that send out?

Also, had the police made the decision not to pursue, and then the offender knocks over and kills someone down the road there would be uproar.

If someone tries to evade the police and injures or kills themselves in the process then that is of their own doing, and I have no sympathy for them.


Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 15 2013, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 15 2013, 11:42 AM) *
Would it not have been better to have planned an implemented a calmer and more considered means to stop this diver? I'm beginning to wonder what the Police actually need helicopters and radios for.


Calmer and more considered means to stop the driver? Such as........? We have no idea if the Chopper was available, neither do we know what the SoCo's were doing that morning, there aren't limitless numbers of them, which may well have delayed their arrival. Because of the p.c. brigade, once they realise there's a fatality, the PCC then get involved with their own investigation, which extends the time already taken at the scene. We have no idea what other 'flags' were brought up on ANPR about the vehicle or it's driver.

Bottom line? If the old bill ask you stop and instead you just floor it, you must accept that it may well all end in tears.




QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 15 2013, 11:42 AM) *
or clearing aggressive drunks from Newbury station, etc. etc.

Transport Police jurisdiction. TVP don't like getting involved too often.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 15 2013, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 15 2013, 12:29 PM) *
Bottom line? If the old bill ask you stop and instead you just floor it, you must accept that it may well all end in tears.

And the police also have a duty of care for other people and if a pursuit looks to be causing a problem in itself, they will sometimes abandon a pursuit.

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Feb 15 2013, 01:44 PM

Take it from a person that deals with bad driving (and parking for that matter:)

Age has no relevance at all in how badly one drives a car. I have witnessed accidents/crazy speeding/nearly been been run over by all ages groups. Lots middle age business men speed and drive stupidly in their top of the range Audi's and BMWs, as well as younger drivers. I'm not defending any group, they're all as bad! Some people are just terrible drivers full stop.

Lets not forget a fellow human being has lost their life. If it was your son, you wouldn't be happy with a random forum user saying "another one off the road". wheres the humanity?!?!? smile.gif

Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 15 2013, 01:46 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 15 2013, 01:24 PM) *
And the police also have a duty of care for other people and if a pursuit looks to be causing a problem in itself, they will sometimes abandon a pursuit.


Very true. That decision is always made by a senior officer not involved in the pursuit, and will take into account how many 'pursuit trained' officers are involved, the road conditions, the time of day, and the amount of others vehicles on the road. Additional information is also taken into account such as previous 'flags' e.g. bilcking, failure to stop, drugs, firearms, insurance etc etc..

Probably because of the time, they allowed it to continue.

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Feb 15 2013, 01:48 PM

and another thing, personally I would prefer the police to close the road for as long as they need to, so they don't do a shabby job and miss crucial evidence that may very well lead to an acquittal in court at a later date.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 15 2013, 12:23 PM) *
No-one knows. The police will react to the situation in front of them at the time. I'd rather see the police actively pursuing dangerous drivers who try and flee than having a policy of not giving pursuit in case the offender injures themselves. What kind of message does that send out?

Also, had the police made the decision not to pursue, and then the offender knocks over and kills someone down the road there would be uproar.

If someone tries to evade the police and injures or kills themselves in the process then that is of their own doing, and I have no sympathy for them.


So, its OK for the Police to put many many other people at risk is it? There are far too many 'blue light' accidents for my liking. No, this doesn't stack up - sledgehammer to crack a nut. I just hate risking life and limb to satisfy process! Health and Safety culture Ha Ha.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 03:08 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 15 2013, 12:29 PM) *
Calmer and more considered means to stop the driver? Such as........? We have no idea if the Chopper was available, neither do we know what the SoCo's were doing that morning, there aren't limitless numbers of them, which may well have delayed their arrival. Because of the p.c. brigade, once they realise there's a fatality, the PCC then get involved with their own investigation, which extends the time already taken at the scene. We have no idea what other 'flags' were brought up on ANPR about the vehicle or it's driver.

Bottom line? If the old bill ask you stop and instead you just floor it, you must accept that it may well all end in tears.





Transport Police jurisdiction. TVP don't like getting involved too often.


Yes, other people's tears. Far too many of these 'chase and run' accidents. Looks like they just want an excuse to be on reality TV. As for thinking, we've rather too much evidence of late to show that's in very short supply in the Police.

Newbury Station - excuses, excuses! Have heard it all now. TVP certainly don't like getting involved..full stop laugh.gif

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 03:13 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 15 2013, 01:46 PM) *
Very true. That decision is always made by a senior officer not involved in the pursuit, and will take into account how many 'pursuit trained' officers are involved, the road conditions, the time of day, and the amount of others vehicles on the road. Additional information is also taken into account such as previous 'flags' e.g. bilcking, failure to stop, drugs, firearms, insurance etc etc..

Probably because of the time, they allowed it to continue.


If this really is the case, which I seriously doubt, knowing some Police Officers personally, given the number of accidents that occur, some fatilities, the process is clearly faulty.

Yes, of course the offender should be apprehended. However, lets not revert to blood lust, which is exactly where we are going right now, hence the popularity of the Police chase TV shows. Cheap and easy TV, pandering to lowest common denominators - certainly not administration of justice.

Enjoy your bread and the circus laugh.gif

Posted by: Squelchy Feb 15 2013, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 15 2013, 03:13 PM) *
If this really is the case,which I seriously doubt


You are wrong. It IS the case. the decision to terminate a chase is, as was said, always taken by a senior officer back at control.



Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 15 2013, 04:10 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 15 2013, 03:08 PM) *
Newbury Station - excuses, excuses! Have heard it all now.


Newbury Station = British Rail Transport Police. Thames Valley manor stops up by the entrance to the Con Club car park. You hadn't thought it through had you?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 15 2013, 04:10 PM) *
Newbury Station = British Rail Transport Police. Thames Valley manor stops up by the entrance to the Con Club car park. You hadn't thought it through had you?


Yes I had - the office of constable knows no boundary. You suggesting that if I am causing a nuisance by being drunk and disorderly outside the Conservative Club, if I'm pursued by a TV Police Officer I simply need to run into the station? Or, if I witness an assault on Newbury Station and dial 999. I'll be directed to the Railway Police?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 04:48 PM

QUOTE (Squelchy @ Feb 15 2013, 04:06 PM) *
You are wrong. It IS the case. the decision to terminate a chase is, as was said, always taken by a senior officer back at control.


Can you define senior? Can you define what constitutes a chase? May be pedantic, but important definitions. It appears that this thing is now (rightly) being investigated by the IPCC. The perpetrator leaves a pregnant girlfriend, at what cost.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Feb 15 2013, 04:55 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 15 2013, 04:48 PM) *
The perpetrator leaves a pregnant girlfriend, at what cost.


Not married then? Maybe the little scrote should have thought about his girl and unborn child before he put his foot down.

And just to help you further, the OIC becomes the supervising officer automatically.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 15 2013, 05:50 PM

QUOTE (greenmeanie61 @ Feb 15 2013, 01:44 PM) *
Take it from a person that deals with bad driving (and parking for that matter:)

Age has no relevance at all in how badly one drives a car. I have witnessed accidents/crazy speeding/nearly been been run over by all ages groups. Lots middle age business men speed and drive stupidly in their top of the range Audi's and BMWs, as well as younger drivers. I'm not defending any group, they're all as bad! Some people are just terrible drivers full stop.

For that to be valid, you would have to know how many from each group you have seen in total, and then divide that by the bad examples you have seen from each group; otherwise, your view is purely anecdotal, but I do accept that all groups have their bad drivers.

I wonder how long it will be before all the police will need to do is to send a stop command via GPS and the car comes to a halt.

Posted by: motormad Feb 15 2013, 06:18 PM

QUOTE (greenmeanie61 @ Feb 15 2013, 01:44 PM) *
Take it from a person that deals with bad driving (and parking for that matter:)

Age has no relevance at all in how badly one drives a car. I have witnessed accidents/crazy speeding/nearly been been run over by all ages groups. Lots middle age business men speed and drive stupidly in their top of the range Audi's and BMWs, as well as younger drivers. I'm not defending any group, they're all as bad! Some people are just terrible drivers full stop.


Oh finally some common sense..
*eats popcorn @ Andy*.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 15 2013, 07:06 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 15 2013, 06:18 PM) *
Oh finally some common sense..
*eats popcorn @ Andy*.

I refer you to my last post. wink.gif

Posted by: motormad Feb 15 2013, 07:09 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 15 2013, 07:06 PM) *
Common sense is what it is not; as per my last post. wink.gif


I think it's more than fair to say there are bad drivers in every age range and you can't accuse one age range of being worse drivers than any other (and as we have discussed accident rate is not an indication of quality of driving).

Going out to handbrake turn around the McDonalds car park now.

Posted by: gel Feb 15 2013, 08:46 PM

QUOTE (massifheed @ Feb 15 2013, 12:23 PM) *
No-one knows. The police will react to the situation in front of them at the time. I'd rather see the police actively pursuing dangerous drivers who try and flee than having a policy of not giving pursuit in case the offender injures themselves. What kind of message does that send out?

Also, had the police made the decision not to pursue, and then the offender knocks over and kills someone down the road there would be uproar.

If someone tries to evade the police and injures or kills themselves in the process then that is of their own doing, and I have no sympathy for them.

Have to agree massifheed; interesting in US Progs how much more aggressive pursuing police are in stopping such miscreants, including the famous shove up the "ars", which they call the Pit manouvre.


Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 15 2013, 09:12 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 15 2013, 07:09 PM) *
I think it's more than fair to say there are bad drivers in every age range and you can't accuse one age range of being worse drivers than any other (and as we have discussed accident rate is not an indication of quality of driving).

I don't agree. It is said that you make your own luck, and I see this is true of most accidents. If you follow the Highway Code, you would be extremely unfortunate to be the cause of an accident. If everyone followed the Highway Code there would be hardly any accidents, and those that did occur, would be 'genuine' accidents.


Some reading for you: http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/YDpolicyBrief.pdf


Kids: Know your limits! tongue.gif

Posted by: newres Feb 15 2013, 09:35 PM

I can't find the research, but some years ago there was some carried out that showed how often when there was a police chase, police would disproportionately race to the scene as it was exciting. In my opinion, unless a serious crime has been commited, the police should not engage in high speed pursuits.

When I was 19, a friend of mine who is the son of a police sergeant and was studying American History at university had a friend who stole cars. It was a habit. My friend, after some drinks in town was persuaded to get in one of these stolen cars. They were chased by police and crashed and the car turned over. Fortunately, no one was killed.

Clearly some posters on this site feel the young lad deserved to die. That is shameful in any case, but supposing his car hit a family car head on and killed them also?

I would like to believe that some of the views expressed on this forum are for effect only.


Posted by: Amelie Feb 15 2013, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 15 2013, 09:35 PM) *
Clearly some posters on this site feel the young lad deserved to die.


Steady, no-one's said that. After reading the story which quite clearly makes it clear that nobody else was killed or injured, one can form the opinion that our roads are possibly a bit safer not having him around. Had others been involved I'm sure one's view about the event might change. (possibly not about him though)

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 15 2013, 10:28 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 15 2013, 09:35 PM) *
In my opinion, unless a serious crime has been commited, the police should not engage in high speed pursuits.

I have a feeling that would encourage fast getaways & lead to further death.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 15 2013, 10:40 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2013, 10:28 PM) *
I have a feeling that would encourage fast getaways & lead to further death.

If they are not being pursued, why rush?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Amelie @ Feb 15 2013, 10:02 PM) *
Steady, no-one's said that. After reading the story which quite clearly makes it clear that nobody else was killed or injured, one can form the opinion that our roads are possibly a bit safer not having him around. Had others been involved I'm sure one's view about the event might change. (possibly not about him though)


Shall we say the expressive and colourful language adopted by some give exactly that impression. There was a locally famous case involving a young ambulance driver on an as it turned out false alarm who drove at speed through the traffic lights on A4 at Hambridge Road Junction early one Sunday morning. He killed a woman legitimately turning right at the green lights. Are our roads safer without her?

It turned out the ambulance driver was a young new employee, who hadn't had any specialist training. However, the Chief Ambulance Officer said we expect our drivers to 'be careful'. Actually, our roads would be a lot safer without senior officer attitudes like that.

When I was in New Zealand there was a national case going on concerning a doctor who was appealing a conviction for speeding on the grounds that he was (and could produce evidence) going to an emergency. The appeal court held that the speed restrictions were in place to protect life and it was wrong to put everyone else at risk, simply to save one.

The outcome of the Police Complaints enquiry will be interesting.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 15 2013, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 15 2013, 10:40 PM) *
If they are not being pursued, why rush?

And put all those getaway drivers out of a job? I say, No fair.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2013, 11:04 PM

QUOTE (Rusty Bullet @ Feb 15 2013, 04:55 PM) *
Not married then? Maybe the little scrote should have thought about his girl and unborn child before he put his foot down.

And just to help you further, the OIC becomes the supervising officer automatically.


I'm sure he should have done. Its a source of constant wonder to me that we don't stop parents smoking at home with their kids on the basis that it endangers both lives.

I have no idea what an 'OIC' is in Police establishment terms. I would expect a Sargent or an Inspector grade to be 'in charge' but they are operational managers. The Chief and Deputy Chief are senior officers.

Posted by: motormad Feb 15 2013, 11:39 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 15 2013, 04:48 PM) *
Can you define senior? Can you define what constitutes a chase? May be pedantic, but important definitions. It appears that this thing is now (rightly) being investigated by the IPCC. The perpetrator leaves a pregnant girlfriend, at what cost.


I think it's daft how half of the time these chases are for minor drug possesion,(as in Cannibis) or panic reaction for being caught texting and driving or something.. Assuming the car was also registered in or around the Reading area, it would not have been hard to trace the car or it's owner/driver and the police would not have to have been in a chase..

I also agree that in some of the earlier posts the feeling I got from some of the posters were that it was just some Youth and felt it no great loss

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 15 2013, 09:12 PM) *
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org...policyBrief.pdf[/url]


Kids: Know your limits! tongue.gif


The highway code has some good points and some bad points (or rather, points which need greatly updating).
Let's not forget it was not really changed or updated since 1960s.. IE stopping distances.. which are a joke.

Your whole argument is wide of the mark. I've read the document you linked to (attentively for once) and again I can't see anything in there that says that younger drivers are worse drivers. Only that statistically, they crash more. ANd how by enforcing one million hours of training and restricting people from driving alone would reduce risk of accidents in that age range.

And while I'm getting sick of repeating myself, as you seem to be unable to understand the crux of the point - that having an accident doesn't make you a bad driver - there is no statistic that says younger drivers are "worse" drivers. Only that they crash more which is not the ****ing equivalent of being a bad driver.

To be fair I probably have better car control than most people on here. Infact anyone on here as most of you lot drive Daewoos to and from the shop. (Forum trackday?laugh.gif) If I want I can make the rear of my car do some pretty interesting things and I know exactly how it will react in the wet and in the dry if I enter a corner at 50mph or 70mph, and if I trail brake into this corner what will happen.. Driving is a dance for which I know the routine very well - Does that make me a safer driver though? Perhaps not.

I have no shame in saying that I crashed within 6 months of passing my test. It was at about 20mph when I was very tired, heavily flu-d up. It was late one evening after doing a double shift at work, there had been an accident ahead, so the lane was blocked (it was a dual carriageway) and everyone was moving over at a crawling speed. I moved over in good time, a car infront of me then stopped to let a car join from the other lane. Unfortunately I just took my eyes off the road to look in my mirror for a split second but by then it was too late. A simple lack of reactions or just a split second of inattentiveness. Luckily there was very minor damage to the person's car who I hit.

That's not being a chauvinistic 19 year old, or showing off infront of my mates, or being distracted by the phat bass, I was driving alone at night with the music off. I was just another businessboy trying to get to bed. An unfortunate accident of which I was to blame. Now does having that accident in any way make my driving ability less? Or likewise, who is to say that if I had not have had an accident that day, that I would be a better driver than I am now? I argue having learnt from the mistake if you wish to call it that that I'm personally a better one now.

It was also a chance to get rid of the hideous car I owned at the time and move onto what has turned out to be a source of fun and friendship (my Dub) so in a way it was a good thing.

Again I will re-itterate, just because you have an accident does not make you a worse driver. It just means you have an accidents. I know people who are dreadful drivers as I have said, yet by nothing more than sheer luck, have not had an accident, and likewise there are people I know who are very safe drivers, that have had accidents (usually small, similar to the one I had).

The point is that there is a lot of dislike for the young motorist by the mainly middle aged demographic which I think is pretty evident on this forum, who hide behind statistics spouting off accident rates rather than accepting that there are some pretty **** good young drivers, and likewise there are some pretty **** terrible middle aged ones.

QUOTE
I don't agree. It is said that you make your own luck, and I see this is true of most accidents. If you follow the Highway Code, you would be extremely unfortunate to be the cause of an accident.


Sometimes that is correct. But sometimes things just happen. While we all mention luck realistically there is no such thing, just reality. I would rather drive upon what I see actually happening in the real world rather than what a book printed in the middle ages tells me.
Otherwise we would all end up driving with hand signals still...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAXNhye9NAQ&t=7m02s

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 16 2013, 12:28 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 15 2013, 10:40 PM) *
If they are not being pursued, why rush?

They rush to cause the police to call off any chase.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 16 2013, 12:34 AM

Motormad - Does that make me a safer driver though? Perhaps not.

No - it puts you into the category -

I know people who are dreadful drivers as I have said, yet by nothing more than sheer luck, have not had an accident.



Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 16 2013, 01:04 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 15 2013, 11:39 PM) *
Your whole argument is wide of the mark. I've read the document you linked to (attentively for once) and again I can't see anything in there that says that younger drivers are worse drivers. Only that statistically, they crash more.

blink.gif

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 15 2013, 11:39 PM) *
And while I'm getting sick of repeating myself, as you seem to be unable to understand the crux of the point - that having an accident doesn't make you a bad driver - there is no statistic that says younger drivers are "worse" drivers. Only that they crash more which is not the ****ing equivalent of being a bad driver.

blink.gif

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 15 2013, 11:39 PM) *
The point is that there is a lot of dislike for the young motorist by the mainly middle aged demographic which I think is pretty evident on this forum, who hide behind statistics spouting off accident rates rather than accepting that there are some pretty **** good young drivers, and likewise there are some pretty **** terrible middle aged ones.

Yes, it is a shame that fact has to get in the way of fantasy; however, anecdotal examples prove nothing. Although I question your comprehension because I am sure that I have already said previously that I accept all groups have their bad drivers.


Sadly, my modestly skilled peer group just don't crash enough so we are not able to supplement the highly skilled young drivers that just keep bashing into things.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 16 2013, 01:06 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 16 2013, 12:28 AM) *
They rush to cause the police to call off any chase.

Good answer! I forget that you are not as daft as you post! wink.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 16 2013, 10:06 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 16 2013, 01:39 AM) *
The highway code has some good points and some bad points (or rather, points which need greatly updating).

That may be so and some may agree.
However, rule 106 is still pertinent, as are all the others, and may be relevant here.
Whether it is outdated or not, if all drivers stuck to the rules within there would be markedly less death and injury on the roads.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 16 2013, 10:36 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 16 2013, 10:06 AM) *
That may be so and some may agree. However, rule 106 is still pertinent, as are all the others, and may be relevant here. Whether it is outdated or not, if all drivers stuck to the rules within there would be markedly less death and injury on the roads.

That should say almost none.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 16 2013, 10:46 AM

Interesting. We expect motorists to read, understand and abide by the Highway Code. Some chance, they can't even read the signs prohibiting access to Parkway Bridge.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 16 2013, 10:48 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 16 2013, 10:46 AM) *
Interesting. We expect motorists to read, understand and abide by the Highway Code. Some chance, they can't even read the signs prohibiting access to Parkway Bridge.

No-one's expecting it, we only speculate what it would be like if everyone drove sensibly.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 16 2013, 10:49 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 16 2013, 11:46 AM) *
Interesting. We expect motorists to read, understand and abide by the Highway Code. Some chance, they can't even read the signs prohibiting access to Parkway Bridge.

Exactly!
Lost cause isn't it?? sad.gif
However, someone who fails to stop when instructed by the police knows exactly what they are doing!

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 16 2013, 11:57 AM

Considering the original debate, sometimes the time taken to examine a scene is worthwhile:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21473080


Posted by: Strafin Feb 16 2013, 11:58 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 16 2013, 10:46 AM) *
Interesting. We expect motorists to read, understand and abide by the Highway Code. Some chance, they can't even read the signs prohibiting access to Parkway Bridge.

They can, they just chose to ignore them. Plus you couldn't see them at night because they weren't lit. And anyway there is no legal requirement to adhere to them, whereas there is with the Highway Code.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 16 2013, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 16 2013, 11:58 AM) *
They can, they just chose to ignore them. Plus you couldn't see them at night because they weren't lit. And anyway there is no legal requirement to adhere to them, whereas there is with the Highway Code.


Did they choose to ignore paying the fine as well?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 16 2013, 07:35 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 16 2013, 11:57 AM) *
Considering the original debate, sometimes the time taken to examine a scene is worthwhile:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21473080


How long was the road closed for? Report doesn't mention that. The original question wasn't questioning the value of an investigation, more the time it took for a road to reopen.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 16 2013, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 16 2013, 07:35 PM) *
How long was the road closed for? Report doesn't mention that. The original question wasn't questioning the value of an investigation, more the time it took for a road to reopen.


The value of the investigation can only exist if the scene is fully assessed before it is (further) travelled upon. Same with a murder scene (which the case I mention more or less was). You can't go back once the road is opened.......

You squawk about the length of time it takes to conduct an investigation.... What would you say if the brevity of the investigation led to no case being proven - or an innocent person being convicted?

Omelettes and eggs, I'm afraid.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 16 2013, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 16 2013, 09:09 PM) *
The value of the investigation can only exist if the scene is fully assessed before it is (further) travelled upon. Same with a murder scene (which the case I mention more or less was). You can't go back once the road is opened.......

You squawk about the length of time it takes to conduct an investigation.... What would you say if the brevity of the investigation led to no case being proven - or an innocent person being convicted?

Omelettes and eggs, I'm afraid.


You've been reading too much Sherlock Holmes. Today we have sophisticated cameras and process driven approaches to collect scene evidence. Similarly, even if a carriage way needs to be closed, there are several ways to alleviate the traffic queues. Although only circumstantial, it does seem that traffic incidents of all kinds take far longer to clear than they used to. If the time investigating can be properly justified, then rest assured we'd have a very robust answer from the Police when it is questioned, I've seen nothing.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 16 2013, 11:59 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 16 2013, 07:31 PM) *
Did they choose to ignore paying the fine as well?

I believe they were quashed, but that isn't the issue. The point I was making is that I don't believe the drivers didn't see the signs, I think they ignored them.

Posted by: motormad Feb 17 2013, 12:03 AM

I think the point RE time taken to investigate is a good argument.
My Dad works for Transport for Reading and it was absolutely **** that tell he told me.

And if you think about it there is only one other route to get from Reading Town Center to the Motorway which is a single lane in 20 and 30mph limits, which goes up through by Morrisons, and continues up past John Kleis and the Ford Dealer.

The level of traffic on this road during peak periods is immense and I think that the accident did not require a 12 hour scene-process. They would only need that amount of time if they wanted to do whatever they had to do to cover their own ****.

I was out tonight and noticed at the Wyvdale Garden Center roundabout there was an unmarked Corsa parked up with two little black things pointing in either direction. Not sure what they were but we were thinking speed cameras.. Anyone shed any light?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2013, 12:15 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 16 2013, 01:06 AM) *
Good answer! I forget that you are not as daft as you post! wink.gif tongue.gif

LOL, if you watch one of those 'open-univeristy-for-those-who-chose-a-criminal-career' programmes ( or reality tv crime shows for the rest of you ) you often see clips where, in desperation to get away, the fleeing driver will take undue risks. The hope is that the Police will call off ground pursuit due to public safety issue.

The police are thus caught betwixt a rock & a hard place - let the granny bag grabber go, or risk killing an innocent bystander....

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2013, 12:17 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 16 2013, 11:58 AM) *
They can, they just chose to ignore them. Plus you couldn't see them at night because they weren't lit. And anyway there is no legal requirement to adhere to them, whereas there is with the Highway Code.

err, one sign out of several was, for a short time not lit. Local chancers got caught. LOL.

Posted by: newres Feb 17 2013, 06:29 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 17 2013, 12:15 AM) *
The police are thus caught betwixt a rock & a hard place - let the granny bag grabber go, or risk killing an innocent bystander....

Except ofcourse that he wasn't a bag grabber and he was driving his own car so the police needed only a quick check of DVLA records which would have given them his address. Of course knocking on the door an hour or two later would provide nowhere near as much excitement.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 17 2013, 12:01 PM

What is the reason a motorist fails to stop, and how is the police officer to know?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 17 2013, 12:46 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 17 2013, 06:29 AM) *
so the police needed only a quick check of DVLA records which would have given them his address.



What? Silly billy.

A DVLA check would give them only the registered keeper. not necessarily the owner and not necessarily the driver. What if had just been stolen? Think on.

Posted by: newres Feb 17 2013, 03:31 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 17 2013, 12:46 PM) *
What? Silly billy.

A DVLA check would give them only the registered keeper. not necessarily the owner and not necessarily the driver. What if had just been stolen? Think on.

Insults? I think I would be on firmer ground in future to avoid looking a dork if I were you.

But it hadn't been stolen. The driver was probably the registered keeper and had you taken the trouble to read the article you would have known that. He had recently bought the vehicle. The person he bought it from is interviewed. There is a possibility that the V5 had not been registered admittedly, but with the detective skills available to TVP's finest, I am sure that they would have accomplished what the Daily Mail reporter managed.

Posted by: newres Feb 17 2013, 03:34 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 17 2013, 12:01 PM) *
What is the reason a motorist fails to stop, and how is the police officer to know?

That's not the issue for me. Yes, failing to stop is a crime, but unless the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect serious crime, he should be prevented from allowing thrill seeking to overtake common sense.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 17 2013, 03:35 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 17 2013, 03:31 PM) *
I think I would be on firmer ground in future to avoid looking a dork if I were you.


Try it then.

I'll type it slowly so you'll understand. AT THE TIME THE CHASE STARTED THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW IF IT HAD JUST BEEN STOLEN.
Got it?

The pursuing officers could have had no idea if it was being driven by it's owner, keeper or a thief AT THE TIME THE CHASE STARTED.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 17 2013, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 17 2013, 03:34 PM) *
That's not the issue for me. Yes, failing to stop is a crime, but unless the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect serious crime, he should be prevented from allowing thrill seeking to overtake common sense.


20/20 vision with 100% hindsight, then?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Feb 17 2013, 03:41 PM

newres got caught not knowing that the log-book only shows the registered keeper. #coveringownarse

Posted by: newres Feb 17 2013, 05:31 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 17 2013, 03:35 PM) *
Try it then.

I'll type it slowly so you'll understand. AT THE TIME THE CHASE STARTED THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW IF IT HAD JUST BEEN STOLEN.
Got it?

The pursuing officers could have had no idea if it was being driven by it's owner, keeper or a thief AT THE TIME THE CHASE STARTED.

How on earth would you know any of that? Were you one of the officers? You are being silly to come onto a public forum stating your prejudice as fact. You are making yourself look stupid.

What seems factual though is that the young boy who died as a result of this chase owned the car.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 17 2013, 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 17 2013, 12:46 PM) *
What? Silly billy.

A DVLA check would give them only the registered keeper. not necessarily the owner and not necessarily the driver. What if had just been stolen? Think on.


I think we all know that, the response was simply outlining one avenue to be explored before rushing straight in. Having known and worked with emergency service people, they do rush in when the alarm goes, nothing wrong with that, its exciting. It can also be expensive, unproductive and dangerous. The very first casualty officer I worked with, some 40 years ago, had two huge signs up in the equipment cupboard STOP and THINK.

So old son, its own medicine time for you!

Posted by: motormad Feb 17 2013, 05:34 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 17 2013, 12:46 PM) *
What? Silly billy.

A DVLA check would give them only the registered keeper. not necessarily the owner and not necessarily the driver. What if had just been stolen? Think on.


Now getting aside from the pedantic nature of your comment, 90% of personal car owners have the V5 registered in their name, as it is their car.
Those who don't are normally in a relationship with the registered keeper. Thus irrespective of whether the vehicle was owned by the driver or not, the V5 holder (let's assume it's not the driver who died) would know who he was.


Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 17 2013, 06:26 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 16 2013, 09:40 PM) *
You've been reading too much Sherlock Holmes. Today we have sophisticated cameras and process driven approaches to collect scene evidence. Similarly, even if a carriage way needs to be closed, there are several ways to alleviate the traffic queues. Although only circumstantial, it does seem that traffic incidents of all kinds take far longer to clear than they used to. If the time investigating can be properly justified, then rest assured we'd have a very robust answer from the Police when it is questioned, I've seen nothing.


Haven't read any, I'm afraid.
Councils are responsible for organising diversions.
The human examination has to be done before the technology can record, and there still has to be an explanation of what the pictures etc show - and the significance. In many cases the technical kit needs to be brought to scene, by one of few officers trained to use it
Incidents may seem to take longer to investigate, but the more technical and legal issues that have to be covered then the longer the evidence gathering takes.

Feel free to make the enquiry of TVP as to why the road was closed so long. I don't disagree it seems a lengthy closure, but I don't know the reasons. I do not instantly assume the reasons are lacking

Posted by: Strafin Feb 17 2013, 07:55 PM

It was a long closure because the police need to cover their butts as they have killed yet another person. The log book issue is irrelevant because even if they knew who the car was registered to, it still wouldn't tell them if it was stolen or if any criminal activity was going on.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 17 2013, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 17 2013, 07:55 PM) *
It was a long closure because the police need to cover their butts as they have killed yet another person. The log book issue is irrelevant because even if they knew who the car was registered to, it still wouldn't tell them if it was stolen or if any criminal activity was going on.


That is fact, or your belief?

I'm not clear on the circumstances. My only comments relate to the investigation process.



Posted by: On the edge Feb 17 2013, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 17 2013, 06:26 PM) *
Haven't read any, I'm afraid.
Councils are responsible for organising diversions.
The human examination has to be done before the technology can record, and there still has to be an explanation of what the pictures etc show - and the significance. In many cases the technical kit needs to be brought to scene, by one of few officers trained to use it
Incidents may seem to take longer to investigate, but the more technical and legal issues that have to be covered then the longer the evidence gathering takes.

Feel free to make the enquiry of TVP as to why the road was closed so long. I don't disagree it seems a lengthy closure, but I don't know the reasons. I do not instantly assume the reasons are lacking


I'm not going to waste any time asking, I know what answer I'd get. I'm simply basing my view on what serving police officers, two of whom could be considered family, have told me. Put it this way, like many big organisations the Police aren't immune to the activities of Mr Jobsworth, the 'Elf n'Safety Man.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 17 2013, 11:03 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 17 2013, 08:26 PM) *
That is fact, or your belief?

I'm not clear on the circumstances. My only comments relate to the investigation process.

I think it's been quite widely reported, in fact this thread that you are writing on is about the story.


Posted by: motormad Feb 17 2013, 11:16 PM

QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Feb 17 2013, 03:35 PM) *
Try it then.

I'll type it slowly so you'll understand. AT THE TIME THE CHASE STARTED THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW IF IT HAD JUST BEEN STOLEN.
Got it?

The pursuing officers could have had no idea if it was being driven by it's owner, keeper or a thief AT THE TIME THE CHASE STARTED.


Oh.
I missed this post.

Why would the police assume a car has been stolen?
Normally it would be reported stolen. Otherwise that means everyone who they pull over could possibly be stolen.

If I get pulled over and asked "is this your car?" - "no, I just broke into my own house and stole the keys". rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2013, 12:11 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 17 2013, 11:16 PM) *
Oh.
I missed this post.

Why would the police assume a car has been stolen?
Normally it would be reported stolen. Otherwise that means everyone who they pull over could possibly be stolen.

If I get pulled over and asked "is this your car?" - "no, I just broke into my own house and stole the keys". rolleyes.gif

It is sometimes referred to as the "attitude test". Although I would imagine you'd boo your behind off if the police didn't rigorously check the driver of a car that had just taken it without your permission.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Feb 18 2013, 03:35 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 17 2013, 11:16 PM) *
Normally it would be reported stolen.


Only if the owner knew it had been stolen. If he or she is safely tucked up in bed and the car goes walkabout (or driveabout) then it won't have been reported as stolen would it? The police won't know this unless they stop and ask questions. If, when told to stop, the car boots it away, that's got to be a fair indication that something might just be wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that as the car roars off into the distance, the cops look at each other, shrug and say oh well it might be being driven by the owner...lets not bother? Right.



Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2013, 09:52 AM

Yes, because of all of the cars you can steal, you'd steal a Fiesta. Registered in Reading and being driven around in Reading - Must be stolen!!
Running from the police = stolen car - We all know that is completely true every single time. Obviously you've never watched any of the cop shows on TV... Traffic Cops - Road Wars, etc.

I'm not saying the police would shrug and "not be bothered" but it's hardly very logical to assume it's been stolen in the first thought. The car was not stolen in this case so your entire point is moot. There are 99 reasons to run from the police and having a stolen car is only 1. Hit me.


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 18 2013, 12:11 AM) *
It is sometimes referred to as the "attitude test". Although I would imagine you'd boo your behind off if the police didn't rigorously check the driver of a car that had just taken it without your permission.


Not really, if my car was stolen at 3am and it was spotted driving I'd be pissed but that would just be the way it works. I'm out at all sorts of hours and yet have never been pulled over either despite driving like my hair is on fire. If I had reported it stolen and it was spotted and not pulled then I would be MAD BRO.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 18 2013, 10:12 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 17 2013, 02:03 AM) *
I think the point RE time taken to investigate is a good argument.
My Dad works for Transport for Reading and it was absolutely **** that tell he told me.

And if you think about it there is only one other route to get from Reading Town Center to the Motorway which is a single lane in 20 and 30mph limits, which goes up through by Morrisons, and continues up past John Kleis and the Ford Dealer.

The level of traffic on this road during peak periods is immense and I think that the accident did not require a 12 hour scene-process. They would only need that amount of time if they wanted to do whatever they had to do to cover their own ****.

I was out tonight and noticed at the Wyvdale Garden Center roundabout there was an unmarked Corsa parked up with two little black things pointing in either direction. Not sure what they were but we were thinking speed cameras.. Anyone shed any light?

It's "centre" in this country xjay! tongue.gif wink.gif
(Don't have a go at me, just trying to help! biggrin.gif )

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2013, 10:30 AM

grr...

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2013, 10:49 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 09:52 AM) *
Not really, if my car was stolen at 3am and it was spotted driving I'd be pissed but that would just be the way it works.

Really? Your pride and joy? huh.gif

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 09:52 AM) *
I'm out at all sorts of hours and yet have never been pulled over either despite driving like my hair is on fire. If I had reported it stolen and it was spotted and not pulled then I would be MAD BRO.

I'm sorry, the implication in your last post regard being stopped by the police sounded like what you would say, being the lippy young scallywag you are! wink.gif

I would imagine the first thought a police officer has, is not that a car might be stolen, more likely that it is being driven by someone who might not entitled to do so. They will also ask seemingly obvious questions immediately that will give them a first impression as to the honesty of the driver.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 18 2013, 11:05 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 18 2013, 10:12 AM) *
It's "centre" in this country xjay! tongue.gif wink.gif
(Don't have a go at me, just trying to help! biggrin.gif )


Oh, they must have the spelling wrong on the front of the building I'm in at the moment....wait, I'm not in England! Must be jet lag, these pesky foreigners and there are so many of them and us thinking they want to come to university here. laugh.gif

Posted by: blackdog Feb 18 2013, 11:06 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 10:30 AM) *
grr...

Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.


An excellent illustration of the importance of good grammar.

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2013, 11:09 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 18 2013, 10:49 AM) *
Really? Your pride and joy? huh.gif


If it was stolen in the night and I had not reported it, and it was spotted in say Loughborough in a Dodgy Industrial Estate, I would have questions. If it was spotted in Newbury Town Center then I would understand perhaps why it was not stopped.

QUOTE
I'm sorry, the implication in your last post regard being stopped by the police sounded like what you would say, being the lippy young scallywag you are! wink.gif


I would say that because it would be a stupid question!! If I was driving a stolen car I'd be driving around my home town wouldn't I blaring my loud rap music while driving around on my rev limiter.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2013, 12:54 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 11:09 AM) *
I would say that because it would be a stupid question!!

Did you not read the rest of my post?

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2013, 01:03 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 18 2013, 11:06 AM) *
An excellent illustration of the importance of good grammar.

Center and Centre is not grammar silly.
It's just a different way of spelling a word which is known both in the UK and the Americas.

I do not make mistakes such as Your / You're.

So infact it's not an excellent illustration of anything, more like a dodgy painting done by Karen, aged six.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2013, 01:06 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 01:03 PM) *
So infact it's not an excellent illustration of anything, more like a dodgy painting done by Karen, aged six.

You're off on one today; I'd say Blackdog was perfectly correct with his last post.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 18 2013, 01:07 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 17 2013, 11:03 PM) *
I think it's been quite widely reported, in fact this thread that you are writing on is about the story.


I don't consider media reports , as yet not updated, as being the full circumstances.
In any case, my query referred to your comment "It was a long closure because the police need to cover their butts as they have killed yet another person."
Is that fact, or your belief?

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2013, 02:33 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 18 2013, 01:06 PM) *
You're off on one today; I'd say Blackdog was perfectly correct with his last post.


Fortunately I rarely care what you say. tongue.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: Roost Feb 18 2013, 03:41 PM

And here we are again.

Whose fault is it?
The police or the driver who deliberately made a choice not to stop for the police and, one would assume then drove like a loon.

Discuss.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 18 2013, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Roost @ Feb 18 2013, 03:41 PM) *
And here we are again.

Whose fault is it?
The police or the driver who deliberately made a choice not to stop for the police and, one would assume then drove like a loon.

Discuss.


Did we wake you? Oh dear, nice cup of tea then.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2013, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 02:33 PM) *
Fortunately I rarely care what you say. tongue.gif tongue.gif

Which explains your lack of understanding! wink.gif

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2013, 07:47 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 18 2013, 06:20 PM) *
Which explains your lack of understanding! wink.gif


My "lack of understanding" as you call it is more like an alternative view from someone who doesn't think the world owes him anything and everything and a pension.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 18 2013, 08:22 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 18 2013, 01:07 PM) *
I don't consider media reports , as yet not updated, as being the full circumstances.
In any case, my query referred to your comment "It was a long closure because the police need to cover their butts as they have killed yet another person."
Is that fact, or your belief?

It's fact, again it's a widely reported story. Who is considered responsible? Or who will ultimately take liability is a different question, one that I think you are getting at.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2013, 08:54 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 07:47 PM) *
My "lack of understanding" as you call it is more like an alternative view from someone who doesn't think the world owes him anything and everything and a pension.

What has that got to do with the price of chips?


Having an alternative point of view is fine, it only becomes an issue when people fail to do their homework, or simply make up things they claim other people have said, or not said.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 18 2013, 09:03 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 18 2013, 08:22 PM) *
It's fact, again it's a widely reported story. Who is considered responsible? Or who will ultimately take liability is a different question, one that I think you are getting at.



It is fact, you say, the reason the road closure took so long was 'because the police need to cover their butts as they have killed yet another person.'? Fact, not an assumption/guess/other unfounded (as yet) statement?

Thinking through, the initial investigation would've taken a while, then (once called in) the IPCC team would want their own look at the scene with nothing changed.

I am sure, as a Councillor you were keen to work with facts on behalf of your constituents...... Would have been odd to make important decisions on minimal evidence, after all.....

Posted by: motormad Feb 18 2013, 09:05 PM

I've not made up anything nor claimed anything.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2013, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 18 2013, 09:05 PM) *
I've not made up anything nor claimed anything.

I have several times pulled you up where you have misrepresented or have overlooked what I have posted, that's all. Anyway, from my point of view; 'nuff said'.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 18 2013, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 18 2013, 09:03 PM) *
It is fact, you say, the reason the road closure took so long was 'because the police need to cover their butts as they have killed yet another person.'? Fact, not an assumption/guess/other unfounded (as yet) statement?

Thinking through, the initial investigation would've taken a while, then (once called in) the IPCC team would want their own look at the scene with nothing changed.

I am sure, as a Councillor you were keen to work with facts on behalf of your constituents...... Would have been odd to make important decisions on minimal evidence, after all.....


Of course thinking through takes some time but why keep the road shut? There really wouldn't be much evidence that couldn't be quickly pictured, or x-rayed, these days digital technology even gives measurements. So unless they want to take immediate geological samples, I really can't see why it takes so long. Onerous paperwork and interviewing don't need to be done in the carriageway

The Councillor analogy is a good one, ironically supporting this contention! The classic 'Yes Minister' move, swamp the poor b****** with paper and call it evidence! Apparently even Churchill suffered and demanded that information was distilled to one side of foolscap. He managed to win a war, we can't even keep the traffic flowing.

Posted by: newres Feb 28 2013, 02:01 PM

I wonder why this one didn't take as long to investigate and gather evidence?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/witnesses-sought-following-fatal-chieveley-crash

Posted by: motormad Feb 28 2013, 02:44 PM

Because there were not multiple police cars chasing after a young driver.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 28 2013, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 28 2013, 02:44 PM) *
Because there were not multiple police cars chasing after a young driver.


Currently searching for the Burbury Kid, last seen in McDonalds carpark.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 28 2013, 04:38 PM

There was a good one reported in the Daily Mail (I found it on a train; honestly!!) today. Three cars and x cops managed to chase someone on a 50cc scooter! He was doing all of 15mph; which was recorded in the helicopter pilot transcript played to the trial Admittedly, he was driving after a ban, clearly a real menace to society! Perhaps we could get Halfords to donate the old bill a racing bike, after all according to some they get up past 20mph in Northbrook Street!

Posted by: motormad Feb 28 2013, 10:23 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Feb 28 2013, 04:25 PM) *
Currently searching for the Burbury Kid, last seen in McDonalds carpark.


I don't get your drift?
Maybe last seen in LOOSERVILLE?! Nwahhhh.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 28 2013, 10:46 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 28 2013, 10:23 PM) *
I don't get your drift?
Maybe last seen in LOOSERVILLE?! Nwahhhh.

Too busy expertly controlling your own! tongue.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)