Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

i saw plenty of that last week on me hols :))

this is what i love most about youtube, stumbling across a classic i had forgotten all about.

ma heart was broken. sorrow, sorrow

fantastic song :)

Compulsory! Now if a political party put this on the NHS (Please), what a vote winner.
By the way, it's not a mini skirt, it's a pelmit.

I read a long report over the weekend, re causes of road accidents (I'm a retired driving instructor). Funny how there are no figures for, the number of accidents caused by sexily dressed females. I remember when I first saw such a girl in Hot pants (No Jimmy, please I just can't stand it), I was a passenger in a car, and the driver very nearly drove through a shop door.

I try to fully concentrate on the road ahead, really I do, but on a serious note, they must be the cause of distraction. Not blaming them at all, but I wonder what the percentage is, IE accidents caused by beautiful, sexy females, and those caused by the ugly ones.

Just so the political correct brigade don't track me down, I would like to state that as soon as I saw the above picture I thought, 'OK a great body, but beauty is only skin deep, I would probably just want to talk to her to find out what she is really like. I would be interested in her thoughts, views, feelings.
'YER RIGHT!
I know what its like to be wanted just for my body. Well I can dream can't I?

That's not a pelmet Greek, it's a bandage..............already available on the NHS, yipee!

On the serious note of road safety....................
I see the government have made it a priority (yet again). They are blaming accidents on youth and speed. Interesting. While I am neither young nor fast I wonder whether they have considered that these are not the biggest dangers to life and limb.
Firstly speed. Whenever I go on a plane I hurtle down a runway at God knows what speed and then set off across the sky at something like 400 MPH, yet this is the safest form of transport there is.
Now youth. Yes they drive too fast and have little experience, but give me a 19 year old at 40 MPH every day, rather than a 68 year old at 30 MPH. Myopic, with his / her nose against the windscreen and steering wheel carving a groove in their stomach, and with reaction times best measured against continental drift. I know which makes me feel safer.
No, the real cause of too many accidents is arguing and restive kids in the back seat, sticking sharp objects in each other because they are bored, while the wife snores in the passenger seat and dad tries to shout at them, watch his satnav and keep a wary eye open for speed cameras, while weaving around to avoid the dreaded speed bumps that would cost him a new set of shock absorbers. Even Lewis Hamilton would struggle to drive under these conditions.
The only way to make roads safe is to only give a driving license to people who prove they can handle a car at speed in poor conditions, remove speed bumps and speed cameras, and make it a basic qualification for driving that you undergo a vasectomy first.

Hot Pants ,i'll have to get on to that Greekman..

Re accidents.
I am a great believer in speed cameras, but not at the expense of Traffic Police. Speed does kill, mainly because those that speed and cause these accidents, either speed in the wrong places, situations, or/and can not handle their vehicles at these speeds.
In a perfect world, if everyone drove sensibly, there would be no need for speed limits at all.

In my previous profession prior to becoming a Driving Instructor, I was a Road Traffic Accident investigator with responsibility for Fatal and Serious RTA's.
Without going into details, I have attended over 100 fatal road traffic accidents and many hundreds of serious RTA's.

There are many causes of these accident, including use of Mobile Phones (a triple death) eating at the wheel (child on cycle) smoking (a young girl who died after hitting a tree after dropping a cigarette down her cleavage) lack of sleep (Selby Rail crash, 10 dead, where I was 2nd at the scene) even a male shaving on the way to work.
And yet when these persons are prosecuted, the public often feel that it is over kill (no pun intended).

I do agree that old age, although not a cause itself, but a factor re condition/health is not treated as it should be.

My big gripe is drivers with poor eyesight. Just try the test yourself by reading a new style car number plate at the distance requirement of 20 meters.
That distance is pathetic. I tested a driver who failed at 8.5 meters, who had driven into a skip. He was about 80 and could hardly walk, and his reactions were almost nil. A fatal RTA waiting to happen.

I could go on, but I know I am bias, you tend to be when you have seen what I have.
Rant over.

I'd be interested in your thoughts Greek.
I once read an article by Jeremy Clarkson, where he argued that an inability to handle a powerful car, or a fear of doing so was a major cause of accidents, either to the driver losing control, or creating impatience in others who then acted wrecklessly. Too fast was not a cause of accidents, per se, but too fast in the circumstances was. Starting to lose it on a corner and being unable to recover due to understeer etc. Speed was not the cause, but the start of the cause, then incompetence took over.
He argued that part of the driving test ought to be on a secluded and empty track, rather like a disused airfield, and be a test of driving very quickly. Not at a speed that made you look like your hair was on fire, but fast enough to make the tyres squeal on the corners. Say an average speed of 80 MPH over a 2 mile course. He argued this would remove those whose abilities and temperament were not suited to modern traffic and modern, powerful cars and if linked to a psychometric test to weed out the boy racers would ensure that all new drivers were both more sensible and more competent.
Tis an interesting theory, though not destined to become a reality.
Alan

Hi Alan,

I agree it could work if as you say it was linked to a psychometric test, but would it be practical. We only have to look at other situations where these test are used, prison releases for one example. Also there is the cost.
Whenever there was a race meeting, cars or motor cycles especially on Bank Holidays) we would know that the chances of a serious RTA were almost a certainty.
Many drivers/riders (must be said mainly the younger element) would leave the race circuits thinking they were the equivalents of Hamilton/Rossi, and drive/ride hyped up, showing of.
We have all been there, I know I was.

As to the Driving Test... The facts are, you can pass in the lowest powered car, never having driven in the dark, on a motorway, or/and a poor road surface and on the same day as passing drive the most powerful road production car available, in the dark, on the motorway in poor weather conditions. The test needs changing to include such as skid pans (a qualified skid pan instructor could sign this of as could practice on a motorway etc).

I also feel strongly that there should be more insurance incentives for good drivers.
This would encourage more take up of Advanced Driving Courses.

I totally disagree with anyone who says speed kills. It's stopping quickly that kills, usually when you've hit something.

Joking apart, why do we British have to beat ourselves up all the time? We have one of the best road safety records in the world. Fatality figures are historically low, despite an enourmous increase in road users and faster cars. Our fatality rates run at around 3200-3500 per annum - look at the rates for these countries - much much higher even when you adjust for the population (for year 2000):-

UK 3,580
USA 41,281 (5 times the population -would be 18,000 with the UK's figs)
Japan 10,403
France 8,079
Italy 6,410
Germany 7,503


Page down to page 64 here for worldwide figures:-

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/contract-reports/WORS/WORS-04-10-2007.pdf

There are always going to be accidents unless we go back to a 4mph speed limit and have a man holding a red flag walking in front of every vehicle!

'The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act):
Set speed limits of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns.
Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three: the driver, a stoker and a man with a red flag walking 60 yards (55 meters) ahead of each vehicle. The man with a red flag or lantern enforced a walking pace, and warned horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self propelled machine. '

See here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act

Hi Oblomov,

I agree we have one of the best road safety records in the world, but we could do better, although there will obviously as you say always be accidents.
As said, in my previous profession you become a bit paranoid. There are on average 10 road deaths a day, which is 10 too many but the number of car miles traveled per day is huge.
Most fatal accidents (driver fault) are not caused by a minor error of judgment, but by someone driving like an idiot, mainly with a I Could Not Care Less Attitude. We have all seen them and more often than not the usual comment is said, or thought, "bloody Idiot".
A bit of trivia......In conclusion of an inquest into the first ever death caused by a motor vehicle (horseless carriage as it was then called) the coroner stated that he hoped it would never occur again. Some hope.

Dunno how true it is, but I did read that the government produces figures every year for road accident deaths where alcohol is a factor, but these figures do not tell us the full story. The truth is they include drunken idiots falling off the kerb in front of an oncoming, and very sober, driver or cars swerving to avoid said drunken idiot.
I am zero tolerant of drink driving, but I wonder how many times statistics are skewed to marginalise and blame the motorist, who, in so many areas has become a political punchbag?

Alan,

There are government figures for all known causes of RTA's. There are separate figures where alcohol is a factor regarding the driver/rider or pedestrian.
At all KSI's (killed/seriously injured) there are about 50 plus tick boxes that have to be completed. Since I retired from that job, there are probably more.
I fully agree re the figures looking skewed although this is down to media.
A headline....'Youth hit by car dies' always reads better than 'Youth dies after walking in front of car'. The first headline hints that the car driver is at fault.
In my experience the majority of pedestrians killed RTA's are the fault of the pedestrian, not the driver/rider.
The official figures are as accurate as the persons compiling such forms, and believe me as these forms are (in fatals) part of a coroners file they need to be.

Surprisingly (to me) it is only around 18% total - and presumably that figure includes drunk pedestrians?


'In 2000, over 560 people died from involvement in road accidents involving illegal alcohol levels, compared with over one thousand people in 1986.'

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=5179&Pos=2&ColRank=2&Rank=272

.

Those are US figures, Greek.

Yes sorry having a bad day. Will delete

For KSI, 2006 see.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2006

And for those interested in STATS,see.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/roadaccidentstatisticsingrea1835

This is the site I meant to be on re my deleted post.

We had a bit to do with Chris and Ingrid Tarrant over the course of a week when they joined our cruise ship last year. We were the paying guests. They were the paid professionals.

I found them to both be very amusing and interesting people. He was a bit of a self-opinionated type of guy and pretty much the identikit guy we all know from his TV show. We both much preferred Ingrid to him and found her quite friendly and chatty. There was a problem punter, and Chris was up for sending him up and making a fool of him on the stage in front of the whole ship. Ingrid, on the other hand, cared about this loser and his problems, like most of the rest of us, and had sympathy for him and wanted to help him.

Anyhow, moving on....

The two of them are in the middle of their divorce battle and fighting it out in the media in a very 'No holds barred now!' type of way and slinging their mud at each other in the press. Extremely personal information is being spewed forth. I find it very amusing. She has my sympathy and I am on her side.

However, don't you think she is being a bit naive?

"Chris came home smelling of fish."

"Chris had blood on his hands. He said he had been fishing."

"Chris couldn't get it up. He has been taking Viagra."

Etc, etc, etc.

First I did a 50/50 on it. Fish? Sorry, no love.

I thought to myself, "He has been phoning a friend, has our Chris!" ;-)

What does the audience think?

Did Chris stop fancying Ingrid? Is that why he needed Viagra?

Had he been fishing? Or was it a bit of a lack of personal hygiene after, err, well, you know?

:-)

20 miles of the M40 closed and causing massive inconvenience to all the regular users, holiday makers and commuters. All to help the police do a thorough search for evidence in connection with the biker shooting murder investigation.

Who gives a stuff?

It's all slightly different to Portugal, eh?

Here in the UK, we keep Pete Docherty out of jail in spite of him repeatedly breaking the law and reoffending with drugs. Neither do we punish him for his lack of respect to our court officials.

Here in the UK, we also jail old age pensioners for not paying the 50 increase in their Council Tax bill.

I think things have all gone kablooie!

Hey, who is running this place?