Today, the belief that speed is more than a contributory factor in most accidents can only be held by those with vested interests. Common sense suggests that if any one or more of the following few is going on then sooner or later there will be an accident’: inattention/distraction, disregard for others and aggression, risk taking, impatience, incompetence and stupidity. Speed? Not really. Clearly, that might affect damage/injury, so there may be an effect, certainly, but the cause? Not speed.
Some say there is no difference between a camera and a live officer. However, I’d choose the latter any day. You can converse with him/her, even if the conclusion is: "you’re nicked". A serious ticking off (even with a fine) may do some good. It is a far more positive event and could leave you (irritated but) with a feeling that the prospective fine payment has been earned and justified. But a speed camera is a dead-head. Being a tin-can copper, it only sees things on the road in black and white. But it is capable of initiating a rather de-humanising experience: you cannot, in all honesty, talk to it(!), and it doesn’t listen, anyway; you cannot explain; and it cannot choose to give you a metaphorical clip round the ear and send you on your way; stealthily, it nicks you regardless, 10mph or 1mph too fast. All this is compounded by the machined missive which arrives later from the so-called ‘Safety Unit’ - as if the speed was THE safety issue. See above, it was not.
And, because there is such a preponderance of cameras, those who are caught making innocent mistakes are treated like hardened criminals, as if that was a choice which they had made. Even those who make no mistakes are treated as if they are about to (in the case of CCTV, particularly). Naturally, most of us leave home in the morning with lawful intention. However, riding/driving requires such focussed concentration these days that it is all too easy to miss a vital sign. And then, to make matters worse, your insurance company gets all upset too. Electronics has a role, but cameras are not the way forward.
As to the money, the advent and blossoming of speed cameras must be like a gift of ever-increasing plenty; and the proportionate public hatred of them ought not to be simply brushed aside. Bureaucracies, from the top to the tiny, are hungry for cash; they want more and with some fervour they guard it and spend it. They will not give up this one without a fight. The thing is, we really do value our officers, so when all is said and done, blame the politicians!
Some say that cameras are a necessary evil in our society which we must put up with. However, an evil is never something that we should put up with. It is best rooted out in all its forms, where at all possible. . In its speed and CCTV versions, the camera effects a form of oppression and is certainly evil. Will no-one rid us of this turbulent beast?
And what about those one million-odd people (I understand) who bother neither to road tax nor insure? I reckon that they are happily motoring around making fools of the rest of us, knowing exactly what they can expect: peace of mind; and the knock on the door? Never.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
The XF - Design features - Some Suggested Revisions
As a Jaguar owner and keen follower, I am more than delighted with the huge success of the model. What a superb motor car it is with accolades coming from all quarters. And we do want Jaguar to be very successful.
However, I have fallen for a perceived need to try to improve the frontal appearance. I feel that the grill setting is wrong, and the front lights are, to me, awful oversized gashes; they are too far from what the C-XF promised. No doubt this was for good reasons, but here I go anyway.
A drawing is shown (it’s very poor!). But my message is that the grill setting should be vertical. Its current ‘slope’ may be smooth but it looks weak - like the S-Type, unfortunately. Marketing photographs of the front are now mostly taken 2ft. from the ground, perhaps for this reason.
Effectively, if the whole grill unit was to be pivoted forward at the top about an axis somewhere near the centre of the badge, then a vertical grill could be achieved. A fresh unit with a new chrome surround around the upper elements would continue the lines of the bonnet, and the bottom edge would ‘move’ back into the opening. This would present a stronger, more eager appearance, in my humble view. Does it not look more ‘Jaguar’ too?
Then there are the front lights. These seem to me to need diminishing, and should have a more rounded/curving appearance to be achieved with more enveloping bodywork - maybe using the existing units. However, somehow, the flasher’s side extension should, ideally, be much reduced in size too - even be separated from the main light unit.
I was so glad to see the revised X-Type ‘face’ looking so much stronger now, and I would like to see the XF likewise. These things are important to us.
We all look forward to the new XJ in 2010. And it’s good luck to the Jaguar team
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Silly Boys
I really do not want my blogs to be limited mainly to the subject of policemen and their various (nefarious?) activities. However, here is another example of what can be described as cases of waywardness of thought among chiefs. An instance where the thought processes have gone completely awry - even awol. Intellectual idiots are to be found in abundance everywhere but when they get to work on our FREEDOMS, then all the alarm bells ring at the same time. Some clanging is that. Hard on the eardrums. It can make them bleed a little even.
There is a little Association of Chief Police Officers It has an acronym to suit: ACPO. You might think that that might be some sort of force (!) for good. Benefits might spring eternal from its symposiae. After all, these are the big white chiefs. Top dogs. They who have climbed to the top of their profession and are on top of their game. After the basics of policing in early years, I suppose that a copper can occasionally find that he gets quite comfortable with the bureaucratic processes. He begins to imagine that he could progress quite well. He might even look up that ladder and fancy himself much higher up. Might even try to see the top rungs. Almost, he can but it is shrouded in mist. But eventually, some do indeed reach the top of the ladder. But it is still shrouded in mist, and it is very insecure. He thinks that he can reach the stars, but it is only the light glinting on all those shiny buttons. There is a lot of swaying up there and very little support. Winds blow to and fro: from colleagues, from politicians and even from the public. Something to lean on would be good, but what? Their Assistants would be no use at all; they would have them down without proper use of the rungs. Ah! Other Chiefs. Yessss! There must be plenty of ideas to ponder, and then to develop to improve policing in this country.
After all their experience of plodding/case supervision/ inspecting etc. you might be tempted to believe that they might become a well of understanding,. In short, you would be wrong. Completely and utterly dead wrong. In truth, you will ‘not believe it’ if you were of a certain age. You definitely would not believe this one if you were one of those who were the subject of their latest effusion. I use ‘effusion’ loosely because this was a presentation by this august little body to members of parliament. Not to their own colleagues. Not to ordinary people. Indeed, not to any old ordinary members of parliament either. Instead this was a presentation to the Parliamentary Select Transport Committee. Now we would all like access to that one. We would have lots of useful suggestions to put to them, though you would not expect many of yours to get through. Still you would have a go. But ACPO could expect.
You would naturally foresee what they decided to present to the Transport Committee to be a well thought out range of measures. But neither you nor I would come up with this one, whatever you thought of the subject: The Chief Police Officers appeared before the Committee and suggested that there should be a complete ban on ........motorcycles: ‘Now....let’s see’, they pondered ‘Yes, no motorbikes! So no more motorcyclists. Yes. A complete ban. That would be good. No more of their accident statistics to worry about, thank you very much. A reduction in the total number of accidents, and accidents to motorcyclists down to zero, in fact. What an achievement!’
Yes really, no more motorcycles at all. Gone for good. They even came up with data which was a pack of lies about motorcycles. And this was presented ....... Yes, it was! Now, you may not be a fan of motorcycles. But others are not fans of baby prams or bicycles. Still others are not fans of staircases. All of these carry risks and all of them are involved in accidents - deaths, even. Could there be a ban on such things? And then, where would the line to be drawn? What else?.....’What next?’, they might ponder. But in the general scheme of things you would expect something less mind numbingly dictatorial - even in this day and age.
Spokespersons for this illustrious band (banned?) of Chiefs has not been a bit remorseful about the lies they presented to MPs. They just explained that they scraped together some information from Google. It was wrong and who cares? Well not themselves, it seems. Not a toss given.
But you might expect that the motorcycling fraternity in the form of those in a representative role would be blasting away at this. But they seem not to be. Why not? Are they too easy on their settees? ‘Not my job, mister. Now, where’s my coffee?’ Only Motorcycle News is having a real go. But this issue goes way beyond motorcycles and we should all be very afraid. Someone might take them seriously one day. Now that would be dangerous. Motorcycle News deserves all of our support in dealing with a serious point of principle. Our very freedoms are at risk.
We had better all watch for other silliness from this little band of brothers. They cannot be trusted. Who would have thought it: police not to be trusted. They were never like that when I was young.
There, I said you would not believe it........’Police state?........... Nah’, you would have said.
On top of this: the case of the arrested Opposition Shadow Minister - Damien Green. Don’t get me started on that one...... All I would say is: beware knocking on your neighbour’s door to ask to borrow a cup of sugar because you might find yourself arrested under anti-terrorist legislation (or alternatively be given an ASBO. Oh, yes.). In some ways we live on a slippery slope. Watch out.
There is a little Association of Chief Police Officers It has an acronym to suit: ACPO. You might think that that might be some sort of force (!) for good. Benefits might spring eternal from its symposiae. After all, these are the big white chiefs. Top dogs. They who have climbed to the top of their profession and are on top of their game. After the basics of policing in early years, I suppose that a copper can occasionally find that he gets quite comfortable with the bureaucratic processes. He begins to imagine that he could progress quite well. He might even look up that ladder and fancy himself much higher up. Might even try to see the top rungs. Almost, he can but it is shrouded in mist. But eventually, some do indeed reach the top of the ladder. But it is still shrouded in mist, and it is very insecure. He thinks that he can reach the stars, but it is only the light glinting on all those shiny buttons. There is a lot of swaying up there and very little support. Winds blow to and fro: from colleagues, from politicians and even from the public. Something to lean on would be good, but what? Their Assistants would be no use at all; they would have them down without proper use of the rungs. Ah! Other Chiefs. Yessss! There must be plenty of ideas to ponder, and then to develop to improve policing in this country.
After all their experience of plodding/case supervision/ inspecting etc. you might be tempted to believe that they might become a well of understanding,. In short, you would be wrong. Completely and utterly dead wrong. In truth, you will ‘not believe it’ if you were of a certain age. You definitely would not believe this one if you were one of those who were the subject of their latest effusion. I use ‘effusion’ loosely because this was a presentation by this august little body to members of parliament. Not to their own colleagues. Not to ordinary people. Indeed, not to any old ordinary members of parliament either. Instead this was a presentation to the Parliamentary Select Transport Committee. Now we would all like access to that one. We would have lots of useful suggestions to put to them, though you would not expect many of yours to get through. Still you would have a go. But ACPO could expect.
You would naturally foresee what they decided to present to the Transport Committee to be a well thought out range of measures. But neither you nor I would come up with this one, whatever you thought of the subject: The Chief Police Officers appeared before the Committee and suggested that there should be a complete ban on ........motorcycles: ‘Now....let’s see’, they pondered ‘Yes, no motorbikes! So no more motorcyclists. Yes. A complete ban. That would be good. No more of their accident statistics to worry about, thank you very much. A reduction in the total number of accidents, and accidents to motorcyclists down to zero, in fact. What an achievement!’
Yes really, no more motorcycles at all. Gone for good. They even came up with data which was a pack of lies about motorcycles. And this was presented ....... Yes, it was! Now, you may not be a fan of motorcycles. But others are not fans of baby prams or bicycles. Still others are not fans of staircases. All of these carry risks and all of them are involved in accidents - deaths, even. Could there be a ban on such things? And then, where would the line to be drawn? What else?.....’What next?’, they might ponder. But in the general scheme of things you would expect something less mind numbingly dictatorial - even in this day and age.
Spokespersons for this illustrious band (banned?) of Chiefs has not been a bit remorseful about the lies they presented to MPs. They just explained that they scraped together some information from Google. It was wrong and who cares? Well not themselves, it seems. Not a toss given.
But you might expect that the motorcycling fraternity in the form of those in a representative role would be blasting away at this. But they seem not to be. Why not? Are they too easy on their settees? ‘Not my job, mister. Now, where’s my coffee?’ Only Motorcycle News is having a real go. But this issue goes way beyond motorcycles and we should all be very afraid. Someone might take them seriously one day. Now that would be dangerous. Motorcycle News deserves all of our support in dealing with a serious point of principle. Our very freedoms are at risk.
We had better all watch for other silliness from this little band of brothers. They cannot be trusted. Who would have thought it: police not to be trusted. They were never like that when I was young.
There, I said you would not believe it........’Police state?........... Nah’, you would have said.
On top of this: the case of the arrested Opposition Shadow Minister - Damien Green. Don’t get me started on that one...... All I would say is: beware knocking on your neighbour’s door to ask to borrow a cup of sugar because you might find yourself arrested under anti-terrorist legislation (or alternatively be given an ASBO. Oh, yes.). In some ways we live on a slippery slope. Watch out.
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Sky News Weather - Watching the clock: the ‘m’ word
I no longer need to know the forecast weather as I might have done in times past. But it is a national fascination and also one of my own. Sometimes I do need to know. Plans have to be made occasionally, even if they are subsequently abandoned, establishing a welcome element of order into life. As an example, I will plan to roll the motorbike out and go for a spin. That needs good weather - well, it does for me. So, the weather at specific times of the day is then important to me.
I watch Sky News Weather because I like to see Sky’s News programme. The problem is that I am becoming fixated with the error of a key part of the report which is the time graphic. The issue here is: ‘meridiem’ - ante meridiem (am) is after midnight and before noon; and post meridiem(pm) is after noon and before midnight. Therefore, noon is neither before noon nor after noon; and likewise midnight is just that - midnight. Neither is "12am" nor "12pm". There is no denying that. It may be Latin, but the proper use of ‘am’ and ‘pm’ can, after all, be readily understood. None-the-less, you can see the Sky weather clock racing through, say, from seven in the morning; you watch the clouds racing too from the west, or the east, swirling systems grabbing the air as they go, dumping rain on poor old Ireland again, or whatever. You are watching that time graphic again and they ping one at you showing ‘pm’ or ‘am’ attached to the reading of 12. "What was that?", you ask yourself in near panic. You are lost. Will I be in bed at 12pm or will I be thinking about lunchtime sandwiches? Confusion. At the end of the forecast you do not know what weather was when; and you are left glaring at that "12pm" which sometimes just hangs there....as a smile does on the reporter’s face...(!) So, do I ride tomorrow or not? Cannot possibly say!
During our early years, each of us eventually learns to understand the clock. You would think that by the time we are old enough to understand weather forecasts we need nothing fresh on that. So, what is Sky trying to teach us? Is this New Sky News Weather Time (NSNWT)? No, no; they may be leaders in news gathering, but they are simply unable to cope with noon and midnight. They are at a loss. They seek some false conjunction with ‘am’ or ‘pm’ for those times and they imply that that is OK. Without a proper solution, anything will suffice. Sky have even decided which way round am and pm should be shown with ‘12’!
Why do they do this? Clocks have standards and there is no justification for any change. Sky should not be trying to teach us otherwise. Schoolchildren - beware! And no-one, please, go up to a policeman and ask him: " Is it 12pm yet?" (it would definitely confuse him).
Politicians and heads of organisations are very fond of telling us that ‘it is right to........’. Well, Sky, this is not right. Even The Good Old BBC eventually got it a couple of years ago and moved to the 24 hour clock (I am delighted, and somewhat surprised, to be writing). Good onit. You see, even (I say again) The Good Old BBC can show good sense at times (though it struggles desperately with all the ‘it is right to...’ issues).
Sky, your computers are able to tell the time properly. Has anyone there got the time (oooh!) to correct the graphic? It should not be too difficult. Or are you, Sky, like some others and standards, simply ‘not bovvered’?
I no longer need to know the forecast weather as I might have done in times past. But it is a national fascination and also one of my own. Sometimes I do need to know. Plans have to be made occasionally, even if they are subsequently abandoned, establishing a welcome element of order into life. As an example, I will plan to roll the motorbike out and go for a spin. That needs good weather - well, it does for me. So, the weather at specific times of the day is then important to me.
I watch Sky News Weather because I like to see Sky’s News programme. The problem is that I am becoming fixated with the error of a key part of the report which is the time graphic. The issue here is: ‘meridiem’ - ante meridiem (am) is after midnight and before noon; and post meridiem(pm) is after noon and before midnight. Therefore, noon is neither before noon nor after noon; and likewise midnight is just that - midnight. Neither is "12am" nor "12pm". There is no denying that. It may be Latin, but the proper use of ‘am’ and ‘pm’ can, after all, be readily understood. None-the-less, you can see the Sky weather clock racing through, say, from seven in the morning; you watch the clouds racing too from the west, or the east, swirling systems grabbing the air as they go, dumping rain on poor old Ireland again, or whatever. You are watching that time graphic again and they ping one at you showing ‘pm’ or ‘am’ attached to the reading of 12. "What was that?", you ask yourself in near panic. You are lost. Will I be in bed at 12pm or will I be thinking about lunchtime sandwiches? Confusion. At the end of the forecast you do not know what weather was when; and you are left glaring at that "12pm" which sometimes just hangs there....as a smile does on the reporter’s face...(!) So, do I ride tomorrow or not? Cannot possibly say!
During our early years, each of us eventually learns to understand the clock. You would think that by the time we are old enough to understand weather forecasts we need nothing fresh on that. So, what is Sky trying to teach us? Is this New Sky News Weather Time (NSNWT)? No, no; they may be leaders in news gathering, but they are simply unable to cope with noon and midnight. They are at a loss. They seek some false conjunction with ‘am’ or ‘pm’ for those times and they imply that that is OK. Without a proper solution, anything will suffice. Sky have even decided which way round am and pm should be shown with ‘12’!
Why do they do this? Clocks have standards and there is no justification for any change. Sky should not be trying to teach us otherwise. Schoolchildren - beware! And no-one, please, go up to a policeman and ask him: " Is it 12pm yet?" (it would definitely confuse him).
Politicians and heads of organisations are very fond of telling us that ‘it is right to........’. Well, Sky, this is not right. Even The Good Old BBC eventually got it a couple of years ago and moved to the 24 hour clock (I am delighted, and somewhat surprised, to be writing). Good onit. You see, even (I say again) The Good Old BBC can show good sense at times (though it struggles desperately with all the ‘it is right to...’ issues).
Sky, your computers are able to tell the time properly. Has anyone there got the time (oooh!) to correct the graphic? It should not be too difficult. Or are you, Sky, like some others and standards, simply ‘not bovvered’?
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Dear Sir
SPEED CAMERA - Feedback
"Fair cop, Gov.!". How often have I heard that in a TV ‘Cop’ series? Now, I am just the same as the criminals there portrayed - no different. However, I am guilty only by making a mistake (I know, we all say that, you’ll say); just a momentary lack of concentration on legal speed requirements - from traffic lights to camera, no distance; and not through a lack of safe driving, I assure you. The dead hand of the machine was waiting to clutch my shoulder and hurt me. It doesn’t want an explanation. That is its way. Flash and fine. Next please! Then, our insurance company gets all upset too. It’s a rolling downward spiral of a kind. Most unsettling, I assure you of that also. Hmm, most unsettling. Oh, Lapse! She has no heart, no thought, no forgiveness!
As I recall, it was quiet on the roads so no risk of a collision. No pedestrians around: no-one at risk from my "excess" speed. Your cameras stand just after a set of lights. Nice one. Silly situation to get myself into though. Must do better. But for the cohorts who lurk, another triumph. Snap, your done. "Criminal!" An alternative, far more effective and helpful, and far less offensive, is the flashing sign: "30 mph - reduce speed!" (No income then though and I nearly forgot that!).
I do not speed deliberately. And my car has cruise control which also serves to help keep me driving legally. It has been 30 years since my previous such ‘event’ (that one involved policemen). I am facing my eighth decade not too far away and I must hope that that is without fear and trepidation of a repeat. But what ever the effort, ‘tis a forlorn hope for everyone, I suspect.
‘Not Applicable’ of course to the 20% riding around with neither insurance nor tax. They are safe at least from a Camera Unit, and a lot else, I dare say. How ludicrous is that? I am proud to be in the 80%.
Please spend my £60 pounds on those road users who truly deserve your wrath - those referred to above who are ‘not bovvered’. Never should waste time replying to this. It is just that a goodly number of your ‘customers’ need your help somehow lest you lose us. A timely reminder is all we needed.
Yours faithfully
To: The Chief Constable
"Safety" Camera Unit
SPEED CAMERA - Feedback
"Fair cop, Gov.!". How often have I heard that in a TV ‘Cop’ series? Now, I am just the same as the criminals there portrayed - no different. However, I am guilty only by making a mistake (I know, we all say that, you’ll say); just a momentary lack of concentration on legal speed requirements - from traffic lights to camera, no distance; and not through a lack of safe driving, I assure you. The dead hand of the machine was waiting to clutch my shoulder and hurt me. It doesn’t want an explanation. That is its way. Flash and fine. Next please! Then, our insurance company gets all upset too. It’s a rolling downward spiral of a kind. Most unsettling, I assure you of that also. Hmm, most unsettling. Oh, Lapse! She has no heart, no thought, no forgiveness!
As I recall, it was quiet on the roads so no risk of a collision. No pedestrians around: no-one at risk from my "excess" speed. Your cameras stand just after a set of lights. Nice one. Silly situation to get myself into though. Must do better. But for the cohorts who lurk, another triumph. Snap, your done. "Criminal!" An alternative, far more effective and helpful, and far less offensive, is the flashing sign: "30 mph - reduce speed!" (No income then though and I nearly forgot that!).
I do not speed deliberately. And my car has cruise control which also serves to help keep me driving legally. It has been 30 years since my previous such ‘event’ (that one involved policemen). I am facing my eighth decade not too far away and I must hope that that is without fear and trepidation of a repeat. But what ever the effort, ‘tis a forlorn hope for everyone, I suspect.
‘Not Applicable’ of course to the 20% riding around with neither insurance nor tax. They are safe at least from a Camera Unit, and a lot else, I dare say. How ludicrous is that? I am proud to be in the 80%.
Please spend my £60 pounds on those road users who truly deserve your wrath - those referred to above who are ‘not bovvered’. Never should waste time replying to this. It is just that a goodly number of your ‘customers’ need your help somehow lest you lose us. A timely reminder is all we needed.
Yours faithfully
To: The Chief Constable
"Safety" Camera Unit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)