Speed Kills

Speed kills, we nod sagely to each other as we chant the mantra, speed kills. Utter tosh. If I walk at twice the speed of everyone else I do not kill. If I drive at 38mph on a 30mph restricted modern dry road designed for 40mph, in daylight with no parked cars, only occasional traffic and no pedestrians on the paths well set off to the side, I do not kill. If I am a Formula One racing driver, pushing my car to the limits, in excess of 185mph, I do not kill. If I am a Policeman on normal patrol duty, without any member of the public close to my tail, then bat along in a residential area at 40+mph I do not kill.

Walking at 3.5mph along a crowded train platform concentrating on the incoming train and getting to the usual door opening spot before it comes to a halt, brushing against a fellow passenger standing at the edge of the platform, then I could easily kill at 3.5mph. Driving at the permitted speed of 30mph on a dark night with wet roads in a congested city and thick traffic, vehicles parked either side on a narrow street with heavy pedestrian movement on the paths jostling to make headway, I might well end up killing someone at the permitted speed of 30mph. Speed does not kill, it is inattention to the road that kills.

When driving at the permitted speed limit of 30mph I do not suddenly slam straight into a sold wall that appears out of nowhere without some prior indicator, coming to an instant stop. No, the road ahead is read, avoiding action is taken, and as an experienced driver I can anticipate a sequences of events before encountering this sudden wall looming out of nowhere. That is the driving reality. Accidents, and fatal accidents are caused by drivers failing to pay sufficient attention to the road ahead. Failing to take avoiding actions earlier enough, asserting their right of passage contrary to the indications of any aggressive on-coming vehicle. That moments glance to check the next song on the playlist, to change radio channels, to adjust the air-conditioning setting, to read that automatic engine condition warning, to take that hands-free telephone call, to pay attention to the punchline of the passengers narrative, that glance to see the junction layout to make sense of the next junction turn, that glance at the speedometer to check on speed drift, these are the moments of inattention when, in that micro-second, something occurs on the road ahead that requires an immediate response. Then we are in the danger zone, with eyes off the road and concentration on anything other than the road ahead.

Being seen to do something in response to the emotional hysteria following a 'loved ones' death on the road is an easy vote winning political option. Play the mantra card, speed kills, then turn the screws yet again. A WinWin. In cash strapped times, cranking up the hit rate on the 'Safety Camera' cash cow bolsters the coffers whilst at the same times playing to the chorus of stop all these speeding motorists causing carnage on our roads. Never mind that the 'loved 'one' was that idiot who walked out, without any check, on to the road expecting the cars to instantly part leaving their passage clear, only to be overcome. More difficult if they are the innocent victim of that driver displaying a wanton disregard for other road users. So bring on all the latest technology, because we can, catch more and more drivers exceeding the speed limit, because no one will blames us if we do, for, as we all know, speed kills.

We have drifted from advisory speed zones to absolute speed limits. We have drifted from clarity with speed limit zones for set circumstances to a bewildering array of ever chopping and changing multitude of speed limits that no longer relate to their locations. We have left the discretionary waving down with a cautionary admonition to an automatic punishment from devices set up to trap any motorist whose speed should stray. But we do have choices. We can choose to regard all motorists as zombies and therefore encourage them to behave as mindless zombies. It will be so popular with the hysterical masses. That zombie drivers are more likely to be bored drivers, failing to react sufficiently quickly to any changes ahead, of course is not a problem because they are driving at a 'safe' speed. Or we can take a more difficult route, but with a better outcome, of treating motorist as responsible and attentive drivers., educating them on their failings, the common reoccurring judgement errors and employ discretion before penalising them. Encouragement to become a better driver is going to produce a better driver outcome than treating them all as the mindless zombie. We can all choose to be responsible attentive road users mindful of other users needs.

Next time you are out driving, who would you rather have in that car behind you or that oncoming driver, a driver concentrating on not exceeding the speed limit or a driver paying attention to the road ahead. It is a no brainer, unless you are a politician.

p.s. I now drive distracted, looking suspiciously at every parked van, or conspicuous car, looking at all road poles and mast trying to spot the latest technology camera's or checking every tree just incase that policeman with his speed laser is lurking there. My attention definitely is not on the road and I am not concentrating as I used to on the changing conditions, I am a worse drive now, but that is ok for as we all know 'speed kills'.

Fair Cop?

For the record I am underwhelmed by this whole Police Commissioner vote thing. The government advertising to whip up public interest really says it all for me. It is the classic 'which slice of the pie' do you want. Stop car vandalism or stop drunk louts or stop house thefts or stop speed abuse or stop drug pushers. The answer is of course all of the above and some more as well. The problem is there just is not enough pie to go round.

What I take exception to is that the government retains tight control of the permitted expenditure and manner and methods to be employed in policing our country. The Police Commissioner is just the 'locally elected' fall guy to take the heat of accountability off from the government decisions which make it impossible to attain the public's policing aspirations. As an aside, 'locally elected' of course equals a political parties nomination with first loyalty to the Party not the electorate.

Just yet another deliberate, cynical tactic by the government to divide to rule. Make someone or organisation 'accountable' at local level to take all the blame complaints and criticisms. Whilst retaining all meaningful control back at central government, preventing them for exercising and employing new innovative and structurally different ways of skinning the impossible cat. They were devised by government so government could escape public blame for failing to adequately source and fund an effective police force.

Free to Protest

I can still capture my sense of shame as I watched one of the first CND marches as they came along Chiswick Hight Street, I had not joined in something worthy and honourable. What a long road public protests have been on since then. All down history when the populace rise up against the establishment and the imposition of their will, the populace comes in for harsh treatments. A cause always has to offer a martyr or two before the establishment begins to yield. Nowadays the rebels are not swathed down, or hung on gibbets but are still subjected to draconian measures in every effort to shut them up and hope they will slink away. But now it is all played out in the media spotlight and the steel fist has to be concealed from public view with weasel words that disguise the background manoeuvres and keep public sympathy from aligning with the rebel cause. 


The resolute and ruthless breaking of the miners strike bought us close to civil war, spared only by the a public demonising of Arthur Scargill that never quite left that image behind to swing around him in support. Since then the establishment tactics have drawn back a tad but still have the single focus of suppressing all public demonstrations not in support of establishment worthies. What an uneven battle it is. The establishment have the fire power, the resources, manpower and technology in excess on their side and they get to call all the shots of when where and how. A David and Goliath contest of epic proportions, it is a wonder that any public demonstrations ever occur such are the enormities of the obstacles the establishment puts in their path. It has to be pre-prepared, it has to be pre-agreed and the route, destination and marshalling all are to the approval and satisfaction of the establishment. The establishment are in pole position to orchestrate the CCTV coverage, data collection on all participants and being well versed in media manipulation have a huge advantage in tipping any media response to a direction that suits their aims. What chance then for the demonstrators. Neutralised, any spark of ire quenched before ignition, pacified, reduced to a tamed crowd under the control and direction of the very expression of forces they have risen up against. All they have left is quantity, their raw voices having been emasculated.


Thank goodness then for the Dean of St Paul's for allowing  the demonstrators to gather on his forecourt, refused access to any other more meaningful location to express their outrage at the financial institutions. Not a protest I agree with, to vague and flabby as to intent and purpose. But all power to them for the public expression of contempt with these mega organisations that are compromising our lives. Not easy to forego home comforts, not easy to jeopardise your future, not easy to stay reasonable and contained, not easy to be stuck in a limbo of wanting to stir discontent but refused any modus for spreading it. The establishment have retained the upper hand and can be seen working away in the background trying to find the silver bullet which will finally win over a public demonising of these protesters into layabouts, benefit dodgers, cheats and part-timers. Once the successful image gets planted then the establishment will have their free-hand to clear up the mess, with the public on board. Damned if they comply with establishment rules and damned if they flout them. They fully deserve all of our support, irrespective of whether you agree or not with their objectives. They are representing our battle to retain a freedom to protest. A freedom we will for sure have a need to use in the near future.
 

It is not important

Just heard the Ad for a mature cheese, a new light version, where the slogan hook was 'No compromise'! A mature cheese is made mature so it has a bite and tang to it. That is the whole point of it being mature. So what it is only an advert. But is not, it a verbal role model for a new generation of children being taught, double speak, concealing truths is ok, even cool. This is how the dudes hang out. It is not okay. The hardest thing in all life is to keep close to the truth.

White lies are brushed off as necessary oiling of the social wheels. The suggestion that any lie demeans our society is shouted down. We need white lies is the chorus reply. No we don't, we need truth. Not in your full on face truth. Time and tact play important parts. Better to defer, to miss the point, to talk obliquely in another direction than the empty meaningless white lies, you are beautiful, you are a princess, you are looking so much better, you are so kind. The answer is not to square up and give full barrel critique, you are so childish, grow up and face the reality of your mean spirited life. But not lies, the audience knows the reality, pretending we live in some other mythical place, destroys the bonds between us. Our eternal search for truth.

When the pinnacles of our societies role models openly display a contempt for truth, from our Prince to our Police to our Politicians, society is in deep trouble. The Prince can publicly declare to the world his wedding vows whilst having a mistress at one and the same time off camera. The Police and Politicians can deny impropriety or worse refuse to answer as it might incriminate them, junketing with the Press and benefiting of Press freebies their salary and position gives them no entitlement too. Too eager to drink from the trough of corruption and too enthralled to notice truths lack.

Truth is not an optional extra. Trust is at the root of truth. Can I trust you, can I trust what you say, can I trust that you will be there to help when help is needed. This is the base cement that keeps us in a social bind. Of course we expect to be lied to, to be let down and for some people to pretend to be other than they are. But not the important people. Not the people close to us, the people we care about and most of all the people that have a duty to look after us. From them we expect the highest standards. Our social leaders used to have just a reputation for integrity, principle and honesty. The rot of misrepresentation, of double speak and standards, of weasely words disowning any sensible construction or over-hyped claims way beyond any realisable property, all these are now our common daily grist. The truth flew the nest a long time ago. How now trust? Who do you turn to that you can trust to mean what they say and do what they say they will do.

You are all on your own in a very cynical deliberately misleading world.

Off with his head

As a matter of course none of us condone acts of violence or destruction of property, it is the code we all choose to live by. Equally none of us should condone the Police's control, barricading and kettling of the protester's march. In a civilised society you do not attack your citizens with an militarised and organised force nor bludgeon the head of your citizens with a truncheon. Yes it is very irritating, inconvenient and a highly volatile situation when groups of our citizens get together to protest against some perceived miscarriage of justice. What would you rather have? That anyone with a contrary view and opinion is stifled, given no voice, prevented from joining up with like minded people to discuss the grievances as seen? Suppress all non-conforming opinion? No of course not, the majority is not always right and certainly those given power do not as a matter of course exercise it wisely. There has to be a vital, lively vehicles for dissent.

The problem is that when there are no channels for voicing and debating what to one side seems self-evident wrong ideas then frustration build up. Supporters gather around that frustration and when, as is the norm now, they are denied access to the places and the people that count in making those wrong decision, our elected representatives after all, no some magical remote elite, then understandably frustration can well up into violent reaction. The Police have to take responsibility for this outcome. Since that woman used the Police as an armed force to break the Union Movement they have lost touch of their true role. To be our elected force to police conduct between ourselves, not an arm of the government to ensure the establishments will over its populace. So by brandishing its total control, by denying access, dictating terms and limits, by bottling up groups so they can control and retain dominance, all this just adds fuel to the fire of frustration. There is a wrong that is not being addressed. There has to be an outlet, a safety valve to express the passion and quantum of the dissent. A protest march is one of the few vehicles left to the populace but even this the authorities want to control and dictate form to.

Of course in any democratic society there is always dissent, by definition not everyone can be pleased and satisfied. But that never was the objective. The objective remains as always that all opinions are seen by all to have been fairly considered and weighted and a resolution arrived at that acknowledges contrary concerns, puts them into a context and a rationale offered for why the majority have chosen a contradictory position. The common goodsense of the country will then see and understand why the dissidents are nothing more than trouble makers and can be safely ignored. Gagging dissent, railroading perceived minorities and attempting to demonise any group that does not agree with your agenda is only going to exacerbate a grumbling disbelief and lead to ever more and more violent protests to break out of the increasing authoritarian chains trying to contain them. Reasoned discussion, even passionate argument is the only viable answer.

So when the occupants of that stretched chav display vehicle, the Royal car, are picked on, it is only fitting. They of all people represent the affluent, self-indulgent, smug, disproportionately influential members of society indifferent to and remote from the harsh economic realities that everyday citizens actually experience and struggle to cope with on a day by day basis. What a more fitting accolade than to call for, symbolically, his head.


.

Gung-ho Politics

The decent society that I live in does not need or want our civilian police armed with automatic weapons. Their role is the civil control and moderation of us in and about our normal life. That does not entail rapid fire-fight to see off suicidal terrorists intent on mayhem where the only conceivable outcome can be large numbers of 'collateral damage', that is slaughtered husbands, wives, children, neighbours and friends to you and me.

If it comes to that neither do I want to be part of a society where it is normal and appropriate for policemen, armed with automatic fire weapons slung in their arms as they, patrol our crowded civilian airports. After weeks and weeks of doing nothing, how do you imagine they could or would respond to a sudden threat within the airport lounge? One single shot to resolve the situation and all returns to normal, or is general carnage a more apt expectation?

There is no disagreement, we do have a need to be very concerned about the rise of terrorism but the answer is not follow the american macho gung-ho approach of massive weapons and over-kill fire power. It is all very dramatic, it appears to be decision action and total control of a challenging situation. In reality this is just a media placating hype. A hail of bullets, even if yours are bigger, faster and more explosive power per bucks than your opponents, really does not answer the terrorist threat. If anything it actually makes it worse and just spreads the consequences wider. We do not want an arms race with terrorists. Nor do we do want to encourage them to target softer and more vulnerable mass gatherings. We actually need to play down our reaction and responses to their threats, to minimise our concerns, to allay their anticipation and preparations.

The police's daily expectation is not that of going out for another days gun fight, their mental preparation leaves them singularly unsuited to respond appropriately and accurately should they have to respond to fire. No matter what training they get in the use of weapons, once the school room is left behind within hours outside of real combat situations, time will dull the lessons of control and disciple. The adrenalin kick-in will inevitably lead to over-reaction, reflex firing with low target selection and accuracy threshold. A million miles away from a controlled careful sighted shot to 'take out' (kill) an armed threat that we are presented with, to reassure our nervous concerned citizen selves. That is not the way it happens in real life, setting well aside the fantasy movie images we are all weaned on. Bullets kill in a brutal haphazard way. We do need containment of any threat but not enlargement. Actually our old image of the policeman, quiet, determined, firm and fair, prepared to sacrifice himself for the public good, is a far better role model for resolution of a terrorist threat than the frenzied testosterone driven macho over-kill techniques promoted by the singularly unsuccessful american role. Quiet containment, diffusion, appeasement is a better and more measured response. It does not make for heroic kill headlines but is more likely to be successful in the longer term.

Police Beyond the Law

We put a lot of trust in the Police giving them the rights over citizens to stop, question, bugger, hold a person without contact for seven weeks or use their discretion an issue a warning. Those are very special powers and privileges granted to individuals who are selected and trained to understand and uphold the law of our land.

We as citizens in a free democratic society are expected to do our bit to uphold the law and keep our society safe. To report behaviour outside of the law, to answer questions and freely give information that will assist in every way possible the exercise of the Police's work to keep law and order. It is our civic duty, necessary to keep our society safe for all of us.

However individual Policeman do not seem to think this obligation applies to them. When questioned as to who it was within their own ranks that killed a person, suddenly the law that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to them and they can choose to remain silent and not incriminate a friend, a fellow officer.

What? They are in some special protected elite above and beyond the law? Any Officer self-evidently refusing to freely supply information they are clearly known to have that will help determine who was there at the time a citizen was killed by a member of the Police Force should be immediately stripped of his uniform and any residual privileges. This is contemptible and he is an insult to the force and the community that put him their to uphold the law our our land. There is no greater obligation than to serve your society.

Right of passage

It would seem in this unwritten democracy of ours, our historic rights are being whittled away by those seeking to have greater control over us. Once it was a matter of pride and the object of considerable efforts to keep the Queen's highway open to movement, at all times. The unwritten right of passage at all times was acknowledged as a binding obligation. Unfortunately nowadays we have no champions of our freedoms left as we succumb unquestioningly to the tottering towers of control, constraint, restriction and retribution.

To 'protect the public' the police now routinely close off the motorways at slipways either side of an serious incident. If a life is at risk or a helicopter has to be brought in, fine, no-one would raise an eyebrow knowing passageway will be opened as soon as the situation is resolved, but no, it is a 'crime scene' that has to be investigated and the risk of rubber-necking accidents on the opposite carriageway means it is expedient to close the motorway until the police investigations are complete and wreckage removed, in two hours, five hours even twelve hours as it suits them.

At vast expense this country has invested in a motorway system to take the increase in traffic, spare our congested towns and villages from the heavy lorries and ensure the essential life of this country can continue to move quickly and efficiently from one place to another. Not every trip is essential but amongst all those trips of convenience are life changing trips for some, a last chance interview, completion on a once in ten year contract, a birth, an organ exchange, all the varied minutia of every day life that is dependant on quick reliable transport between our towns. Without which our country would grind to a halt, suffocate and stagnate. It is an absolute need for modern life. Yet a policeman on some spurious justification can just close this life line, leave people stranded without any clue as to whether for one hour or twelve hours, re-route traffic which is not trapped through routes which seize up as they cannot cope with the flow and be indifferent to all the personal tragedies and traumas that ensue, left alone the huge costs that have to be suffered by the motoring public. But that is alright because they are motorists and its all their fault, if they drove properly there wouldn't be accidents, seems to be the mentality. Wrong, we have a right of passage and a right to be spared the costs and inconveniences of extremes delays.

Its a balance, inconvenience to a great many to save a life or avert a national crisis. A crime scene report! When has any report been issued that illuminates the sequence of events upto an accidents or leads to all those numerous arrests of criminal drivers? Public rights and goodwill has been usurped by bureaucracy abusing what should be essential last resorts, because they can get away with it unchallenged.

It gets worse. Now roads are being closed for a day, a week, five weeks so it can be repaired. There must be the odd stretch of road where the only option is closure, exceptional. Most do not have to be but it is a money thing. Cash strapped council can save really large sums out of very hard pressed budgets by giving themselves and their contractors a closed road to work with. All those additional costs such as converting a stretch of road to two-way flow, traffic controls or night time working, all magically saved. Except of course the real cost is hidden, off anyones budget and can therefore be disregarded, it is huge and is borne by all those motorists and companies reliant on good transport and whose journey has now becomes a nightmare, trying to squeeze the diverted traffic through tight restricted congested towns with huge delays. By an administrative stroke denied their right of passage along the Queens highway with not a whimper in protest.

Joint Enterprise

Cannot but comment on Panorama's 'Joint Enterprise' piece that highlighted the Police's enthusiastic use of a 300 year old law where a by-stander member of a group is as liable for a murder as the person carrying out the murder. Beyond the headline, it went on to imply that it might be necessary to prove that an individual was a member of a group and the group was known to that individual to be prone to violence, before the event.
It is self-evidently a nonsense law. A member of a group may very well be an accomplice to an event but that is a world apart from being treated as equally guilty to the actual persons that inflicted harm likely to cause death or injury. To stand by, watch and not intervene is a crime, yes, but not comparable and equal to actually crossing the line and actually inflicting injury. There is a huge difference between thoughts which may, or may not, encompass intent and the actual physical realisation. Who knows what might stay the hand of intent before its enactment? Who really knows what intent was in mind or whether there was some other innocent explanation for being with the only gang around?
It is deeply worrying that the Police have distanced themselves from the Society they are charged with policing. It used to be that they were of the society, were members of it and mixed freely within it.
That they can revert to an obsolete law, ignore the blatant injustice explicit within it and promote it as a way to successfully target street crime shows all too clearly the distance they have placed between themselves and the society they set out to control.
Have they lost all sight of the mechanics of deprived areas, have they no comprehension of youth culture or the absence of choice for those without means?
This willingness to use a manifestly unfair law that defies the common man's comprehension can only result in further alienation of all those not born middle-class, white and from a nice area.