Our boy Jeremy again

jess, where did I say it's unfair to catch people speeding, or even imply it?

I agree with your post too, eloethan. However, there is an argument (not mine but one I had heard elsewhere) that suggests that it is racist for white people to be what the argument calls "so precious" about non-white people's feelings. I know that sounds bad, so let me explain. Earlier in this thread, if I remember correctly, someone mentioned terms that are used in Australia and which the people to whom or of whom they are used just laugh off. They do not take offence. White people also harbour a lot of guilt (rightly or wrongly isn't the issue here, simply that they do) about past imperialism and colonialism and they take quite a lot of flak because of it. They take it on the chin, presumably because they think they deserve it.

The argument against 'preciousness' towards people who would describe themselves as something other than white is that it is racist of white people to think that non-white people can't take non-offensive terms or characteristic descriptions (in the 'white' world, something such as blue-eyed blondie, swarthy brunette, or red-haired to describe a group of people) in their stride. This, the argument goes, is racist because it implies that non-white people are not as strong as white people so we, the superior ones, have to treat them with more care, including how we talk or describe.

It's very difficult to put this argument into words without saying something – a word or expression – that is frowned upon as racist or somehow beyond the pale, so I apologise in advance if I have done that. I don't even know if I'm allowed to use the expression "non-white people". What is the proper expression nowadays? It's not that I need one most of the time – people are just people – but one does sometimes need descriptive expressions when talking about physical group characteristics of people from various parts of the planet.

It seems to me that it is getting more and more difficult to even talk about the problems caused by racism.

Just for the record, my own view is that there is one and only one human race but that for geographical and cultural reasons various groups of us have evolved different physical characteristics. I feel we (all of us) should be able to mention those characteristics descriptively without any negative connotations being assumed.

I'll stop now. It's tricky. I hope at least someone understands where I'm coming from.

Because you're defending Clarkson's attitude maybe?
I just don't get the "it's unfair to catch people speeding" argument.

I haven't argued against 30mph speed limits (quite the opposite actually; I hearitly approve of 20 is plenty areas too), jess, so why are being so pointed at me about that?

Eloethan A very good point.

Good post Eloethan. I personally object when people take the piss out of the Welsh. It is not a nice feeling. But if you speak up and say so, you are accused of being humourless.
And on the subject of humour...
I dont recall Pythons ever taking the piss when the subject was as serious as traffic accident deaths. The point bags is that when there is an accident speed makes a huge difference. Particularly pedestrian deaths in areas supposedly 30mph
Hit a child or other pedestrian at 20mph and there is a very small chance of killing them
At 30mph it still not high but once over 30mph it shoots up rapidly. It is a swoop up on the graph not a straight line.
Motorways in England are very heavily congested these days and people who obviously think they should be able to go at 80 or 90 add to the problems as they can make the outside lane difficult to use as they zoom up close behind people overtaking at 70. Most speed cameras are not on motorways though are they - they are in areas where are there are hazards and risks.

Here is a nice, long and recent analysis of the data Bags highlighting relative risks to young and very old.
assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf

Thank you for that wise and pertinent contribution Eloethan. As I've said elsewhere its a matter of treating every person, whether in RL or through a media source, with courtesy and respect.

By all means challenge and mock behaviour, challenge and mock ideas or attitudes, but don't mock those aspects of other people which are an intrinsic and integral part of what they are. And that includes their given names.

I used to like Spitting Image. It was one the things that kept us going in the Thatcher years, but I don't think Clarkson's offerings are in the same league of excellence. I watch Live at the Apollo, Mock the Week etc. sometimes but find some of their stuff shouty, brash and quite offensive. HIGNFU is still good.

I think it's a bit much when white people say words to the effect of "what's all the fuss about? People are too sensitive/too easily offended these days". It is not for white people to decide whether the word "nigger" or "slope" is unacceptable or whether JC is a bit of a lad who just made a silly mistake, it is for the people at whom the word is directed. Surely we wouldn't find it acceptable to use terms like "cretin" or "mongol" and I think terms like "old dears" and "wrinklies" are equally demeaning.

Some black or asian people may say they don't mind such terms. Quite often people from ethnic minorities just put up with things because they don't have the confidence to challenge them and they feel that, in order to be accepted, they must conform to what is expected of them. When my husband first came to this country, his white colleagues tried to give him an English name (and his name is not at all difficult to pronounce) but my husband insisted on being called by his own name. Most of his non-British friends just went along with it because they were scared of being labelled "difficult" or "touchy".

Didn't find Monty Python funny in the least, didn't find slapstick or clowns funny as a child either but certainly enjoy HIGNFY and this type of humour.
Humour is a very personal thing, like taste in music.

According to RoSPA 'around 400 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions'

And programmes such as Have I Got News, 8 out of 10 Cats, Mock The Week.

Me too.

I'm wondering now if the people who don't find Clarkson's outrageousness funny at least some of the time didn't find Monty Python funny either. It strikes me as the same kind of ridiculous piss-taking. Totally over the top, of course. Which is why it's so popular. It's bonkers and so is Top Gear. We need a bit of bonkerness.

Well, I do.

Yes, pogs, I'm saying what you're thinking, pretty much. I didn't bother to do the mental arithmetic because Labour haven't been "in office" for years. That plus my own memory of the guideline a good number of years ago (could easily be ten or more) that said speed cameras had to be visible and painted yellow.

I'm not sure how the article 'appeared to be current' Jess, as it obviously wasn't.

That bags

Are you saying what I am thinking. The link, tenuously, being connected to Clarkson must have been printed in 2002!

'The government's own figures show cash raised by speed cameras has more than doubled since Labour took office.'

I am thinking Labour took office in 1997 so 5 years on it would be 2002.

I must be simple I don't understand the point, or is it my maths again.

There should also be more drugs testing as well as tests for alcohol. I am sure some bad driving is caused by people under the influence of drugs.

MrB claims that the Home Office commissioned three studies in 1990s which, according to his memory, found that 3-7% of road accidents in the UK were caused by excessive speed.

The Cochrane Report linked to above in this thread is a global study and not directly relevant here since, compared to many other countries, driving here is actually not that bad on average. That Report, being global, is not really comparing like with like. You'd need a better controlled study (or several) comparing the UK with countries whose driving records are similar to ours.

Again according to MrB's memory, the main cause of road accidents (and therefore of injuries and deaths) was shown to be bad driving. Of course the police pushed for the speeding camera idea because that was something we had the technology for and that they could do something about. And it would raise them some dosh! Improving driving standards, or having police in accident spots in order to make a difference is much harder to achieve and much more costly.

It's worth remembering as well that current speed limits were set when brakes, and cars in general, were far less good than now. The 30mph limit in built up areas and 20 near schools obviously make sense because of pedestrians, but the speed limits on motorways are harder to justify on the grounds of safety. Again as roseq has already said, driving too close is much more of an issue.

All that aside, thanks for the links. I especially liked the paragraph in Monbiot's article that quoted Clarkson on the M20 cameras. I read the article to MrB and we both enjoyed that. I honestly think that anyone who can't see that JC is joking here is having a sense of humour bypass and I pity them. Yes, it's outrageous, but that precisely why it's funny.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

I wasn't going to contribute again, but not sure that exceeding the speed limit (by a small amount) on motorways causes more accidents; having been on quite a few motorway journeys in the past few weeks, I think that people driving too close, weaving in and out of other traffic and generally behaving irresponsibly whatever the speed is more dangerous.

I agree with speed restrictions on roads in towns and cities where there are pedestrians and pedestrian crossings.

Many accidents are caused by wrong tyre pressures - all tyres should be regularly checked to make sure the pressure is correct for the car and for the load.

Sorry - the article appeared to be current. No mention of Clarkson but no secret that he was the most loudly vocal anti- speed camera campaigner.
George Monbiot blog on the irresponsibility of JC:
www.monbiot.com/2007/11/13/fast-and-loose/
Any police officer or similar will tell you speed is a problem. Injuries increase exponentially with speed. Thats why we have speed limits and why it is against the law to exceed them.

Evidence on speed cameras:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20927736

Agree absolutely, bags. I looked for a date on that article, but strangely there wasn't one.

Hmm. There's no mention of JC at all. Yes, he has argued against them (sorry, whinged; people object if I use that expression on gransnet) but he's only one of many, including the AA.

The new guidelines seem completely sensible to me. Here is the good sense succinctly: "drivers will know that cameras are only sited in places where there is a genuine speed and accident problem and they will drive accordingly."

I say "new guidelines" because that's what the article said, but speed cameras have supposed to have been clearly visible and painted yellow for years! Those guidelines are not new.

It looks as if some police forces have been using speed cameras more as revenue (tax) collection devices than useful signs to motorists that there is a potentially dangerous bit of road ahead, which was the original idea behind speed cameras.

Aha! hang on. I told you these were old guidelines! Here are the last three sentences of the article:

"The Government's own figures show cash raised by speed cameras has more than doubled since Labour took office five years ago.
The number of camerarelated fixed penalty tickets has also more than doubled, to over 600,000 a year, and had been predicted to top three million in the next two years.
Prosecutions at magistrates courts have rocketed 16-fold in some areas, with the total across England and Wales soaring from 48,000 to more than 109,000."

Since LABOUR took office?!?!?!? It's an old article.

And my question hasn't been answered: on what evidence do you base your claim that harm has been done by JC's "whinging" about speed cameras?
There is no evidence of harm in this old article, only of guideline changes from several years ago.
Besides which, Clarkson is only one person "whinging" about speed cameras, alongside many others including motorists' support groups like the AA.

I don't object to speed cameras at all, but I do understand why some people campaigned for fairness in their siting. Some police forces, it appears, were using speed cameras in a way that was not intended as part of their purpose. That is manifestly unfair and probably, as MrB has said, completely unhelpful in reducing road accidents.

Right. Sorted. I'm about to read that DM article but first a small objection to your final question about speed limits being unfair. I haven't even made any objection to speed cameras, let alone speed limits. I have no objections to either. I simply asked on what evidence you made the claim that JC's 'campaign', as you call it, was doing harm.

MrB claims there is no evidence that speed cameras reduce accidents either.

Between the two of those opinions I hope to become better informed in the next few minutes, although I'm not sure how much weight I should give a DM article. (Not sure how much weight you'd give a DM article you disagreed with either!)

Here goes....

Thanks for the link, jess. I'll read it in a bit. Gotta go and get dinner sorted.

In general I agree, about avoiding what could be offensive, but what if one doesn't know that a word's meaning has changed to something objectionable? Spunk as mentioned above is a good example. I'm only aware of its decent meaning. If some people have turned it into something vulgar, that is rather unfair, and not a reason for me to avoid using it in its original context. Whether one's using its original meaning or its slang one should be obvious, shouldn't it?

Like the word 'gay’. It hasn't lost its earlier meaning even though it's widely used to mean something else.