Anyone see last Sunday's programme? Covered a lot of ground - history of the UK car industry (one of the low points being the Austin Allegro); also motoring in general.
Programme No.2 of 3 is tomorrow at 8 - theme: our supposed obsession with speed. Can't afford it myself... ;0)
Oz (as was)
|
|
Yes, I thought it was a good show - not partisan, presented both sides of the road-building debate. Sort of programme that's been missing from our screens recently in that it had a bit more substance than recent offerings. Relevant too, considering the start of congestion charging. Based on last week's show, I'm hoping the programme about speed will take a similarly objective look at speed as one part of a wider safety issue and not just do a "cameras good, speed bad". Anyone know what the third programme will be about?
|
|
|
|
Yes, but what could have been fairly interesting was spoilt for me by the curious and frequent inclusion of that alleged comedienne.
|
|
Agreed! Even Question Time seems to do that sort of thing now.
|
Interesting concept but ruined by bolting on the usual 'if we get a few celebs on, more people might watch it' format.
Why is it that when you watch these b-list stars-of-yesteryear waxing lyrically about motoring in their youth that you get the sneaking impression that they probably weren't born when some of the things they 'recall' took place. Craig wotsisname must have been in nappies when the Allegro was around and there he was talking about the quartic wheel...
Had some fascinating old footage, but didn't really say anything new and has a suspiciously anti-car undercurrent to me. The stuff about the death of the British motor industry was done far more effectively in a book called 'Wheels of Misfortune' a few years back, and the TV prog missed a real trick with the story of the Mini - i.e., it was Ford who discovered BMC was losing around £30 on everyone it sold after Dagenham's bean counters ripped a Mini to pieces and costed all the components.
Be fascinated to see what line they take tonight with the speed issue, but if it's the 'speed causes accidents yet those awful car makers sell performance' I won't be surprised.
|
Like yourselves, I saw last weeks programme, and enjoyed. As for this week, perleease. What a load of testicles. Imagine the debate. The english equivalent of the Dodge Charger aka The General Lee was the VW Golf GTi - discuss.
I found the mixed and filming editing amateurish. Yeah, NASCAR & CART all racing round the same track. As for the pseudo 60's/70's filming. Aaarrgghhh! At the end, I thought the sanest person on the whole programme was Jimmy Saville.
It would be interesting to see what a certain J.Clarkson thought about this garbage.
Me, I've vented my spleen, so I'm off to bed with my cocoa.
|
Apologies, just started new thread on exactly the same subject:
>>
What started as quite interesting degenerated into little more than a public safety advert with the usual BS of 'a 1mph reduction in speed reduces fatal accidents by 5%' and so on. Anyone else left annoyed? On a more serious point I really don't believe speed limiters in cars could ever be safe. DRiver concentration and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
What started as quite interesting degenerated into little more than a public safety advert with the usual BS of 'a 1mph reduction in speed reduces fatal accidents by 5%' and so on. Anyone else left annoyed? On a more serious point I really don't believe speed limiters in cars could ever be safe. DRiver concentration and so on.
|
|
The statistic that each 1mph reduction leads to a 5% reduction in fatalities is clearly wrong, because it implies that if we all reduce our average speed by 20 mph that no-one would ever get killed on the road. This is utter nonsense.
|
You would be hard pushed to kill yourself in a crash at 20mph in a modern car. Even pedestrians have a good chance of surviving a 20mph impact. So it isn't rubbish, just common sense. Although I accept that given an average of 20 mph, some will be travelling faster and thus more likely to be killed. Plus you can't really extrapolate a statistic like that because rule of thumb is usually only useful over a short range. Note that it is a rule of thumb, not meant to be accurate to the nth degree.
The basic fact which so many like to ignore is: if you have an accident, the lower the speed at which the impact occurs the less likely you are of being killed or injured. FACT. Bleedin' obvious innit, as Alf Garnet would have said. So lower average speeds should mean less deaths, as was proved when the 70mph limit was brought in.
|
>>So lower average speeds should mean less deaths, as was proved when the 70mph limit was brought in.
Pedantically, it means less deaths per accident.
Whether or not there would be less accidents with a reduced speed limit is not so obvious.
So, it is neccessary to be sure that lower speed limits don't result in a higher number of accidents. Not that I am saying it would, you understand, merely that it is a different point.
|
No one is claiming that there would be less accidents, only that the deaths and injuries from the accidents that do occur would be less if the average speed is lower. I don't how that can be argued with.
Whether more or less accidents would happen is another question. My gut feeling is that there should be less at lower average speeds as the time for reaction to a dangerous situation would be longer. Offset against that is the potential increase in accidents due to the blood pressure of 'Max Power' types going through the roof if they are compelled to drive at a speed most people would consider sensible.
I have no problems with speed per se, but in built up areas and on country lanes I see so much stupid behaviour. On an empty motorway, what's wrong with 120 mph? On many of the 60mph limit lanes by me, 40 can be too much.
Where you draw the line between the nanny state telling us what's good for us and the rights of an individual, I don't know. But I think a lower average speed on many roads is a good idea. How you achieve it is another matter. I'm not too bothered if people kill themselves in their cars, look on it as natural selection, but I do care if they kill other people, especially me and mine. So there needs to be some control. I would consider myself a liberal (small L). An individual should be able to what they want, as long as no one else is harmed or inconvenienced against their will. Thus you can smoke all you like, just don't make me breathe it in or ruin my restaurant meal with the stink. Likewise, feel free to drive into a tree (as many young lads tend to round here), just don't take me with you.
There, I feel better now! That's the world put to rights!
|
|
|
|
I think you may have misunderstood the maths Roger - if the stats say that each 1mph reduction yields a 5% decrease in fatalities that means a 5% reduction in the new lower total, not the original total.
In other words for each reduction of 1mph the actual decrease in the number of fatalities will be smaller than the previous one. This is logical.
e.g. 1000 fatalities @ 40mph becomes 950 @ 39mph (i.e. a reduction of 50),
but a further 1mph reduction to 38mph leads only to a 5% reduction from 950 (i.e. a reduction of only 47.5) and so on. As the speeds get lower the effect of the 5% reduction on actual numbers of fatalities is therefore smaller.
I hope that makes sense
:-¬
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies. Didn't see the other thread.
|
All put into one thread.
M.
|
|
Agreed, first 10 minutes were interesting then degenerated into utter rubbish, with Tara Palmer-Tomkinson being wheeled out (Again). 1 mph reduction in speed, blah blah, come to essex where we have plenty of speed cameras yet the number of accidents rose last year (try explaining that one).
|
|
|
|
Another average programme heads south.
|
|
|
|
What I found strange was the implication that there were no "souped-up" cars in Britain until the Golf GTi, Astra GTE in the '80s. Doesn't tally with my memory of wanting a Mini Cooper in the '60s or even a basic Mini that I could "tune- up"(!)- and what about the Dolomite Sprint? to name but a couple. Remember being impressed by a mate's Hillman Imp which went like the clappers (often backwards) and also a Renault Gordini which mostly ended up facing the wrong way through hedges. Or am I wearing rose tinted glasses and have got the wrong decade?
|
|
I always longed for a 3 litre Capri or RS2000. Ended up with a 1.3 Escort in Signal Yellow with Green Interior....
|
Have to admit the programme was a bit of a disappointment - get rid of the ***** celebrities! (1) That said, the stats for road fatalities in the sixties were pretty horrendous, especially considering the amount of traffic around then as opposed to today. But the idea of satellite-controlled speed limiters is ludicrous - I think someone on this site once pointed out as an example that if you went from a 60 zone to a 30 zone while completing an overtaking manoeuvre, you could end up being slowed down on the wrong side of the road. I'm not saying that it's good practice or safe to overtake "at speed" if you know that a 30 zone is coming up, but taking control of the vehicle away from the driver in such a way is too dangerous IMHO. Even hi-tech cruise control which uses radar (?) to maintain your distance from the vehicle in front can be over-ridden AFAIK.
(1) asterisks author's own ;)
|
Hurrah, at least there are some sane people out there. It was the use of bland statistics that realy got up my nose. So many million killed on the roads in USA, more tham Vietnam. Consider themselves lucky they didn\'t drive to the war. as they say, there\'s lies, damn lies and statistics.
[snip] Gosh, did I really say that.
apparantly not. M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
