Drop in number of animal accidents in New Forest (From Daily Echo)

Thats because nobody can afford the fuel to drive through the forest.

'Only four'.....Isn't that bad enough? It beggars belief how drivers can smash into such a huge animal. These **** should NOT be on our roads!

Solomon's Boot wrote:
'Only four'.....Isn't that bad enough? It beggars belief how drivers can smash into such a huge animal. These **** should NOT be on our roads!

I think the child-like simplicity of your argument suggests that you may have made the post before going to school. Until the animals are fenced in there will continue to be accidents and as society is based on motorised transport which yields a lot of revenue for the government, the cars will always be on the roads of the forest. The owners of the animals prefer to replace the 'fallen stock' to continue their Commoning rights, the Police are too busy to offer an effective deterrent and the forest roads get busier every year. Every single day there are accidents on the roads where people are maimed or killed, do you think these drivers shouldn't be on the road either?

Torchie1 wrote:

Solomon's Boot wrote:
'Only four'.....Isn't that bad enough? It beggars belief how drivers can smash into such a huge animal. These **** should NOT be on our roads!

I think the child-like simplicity of your argument suggests that you may have made the post before going to school. Until the animals are fenced in there will continue to be accidents and as society is based on motorised transport which yields a lot of revenue for the government, the cars will always be on the roads of the forest. The owners of the animals prefer to replace the 'fallen stock' to continue their Commoning rights, the Police are too busy to offer an effective deterrent and the forest roads get busier every year. Every single day there are accidents on the roads where people are maimed or killed, do you think these drivers shouldn't be on the road either?

OK, so let's just continue
recklessly driving too fast, regardless of any speed limits (it's not as if there aren't any warning signs is it?)

So your 'argument' is that accidents happen, regardless of whether we can or should do anything to prevent them and that, because cars raise lots of money for the government (not sure what your point is, there) cars take precedence in the New Forest, the police won't do anything about these accidents, and, as people get killed in accidents every day, we should just accept it and not do anything about it?

.....And it's me who's supposed to have made the 'child-like argument?

Pathetic, 'Torchie' Very childish!!

Solomon's Boot wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Solomon's Boot wrote: 'Only four'.....Isn't that bad enough? It beggars belief how drivers can smash into such a huge animal. These **** should NOT be on our roads!

I think the child-like simplicity of your argument suggests that you may have made the post before going to school. Until the animals are fenced in there will continue to be accidents and as society is based on motorised transport which yields a lot of revenue for the government, the cars will always be on the roads of the forest. The owners of the animals prefer to replace the 'fallen stock' to continue their Commoning rights, the Police are too busy to offer an effective deterrent and the forest roads get busier every year. Every single day there are accidents on the roads where people are maimed or killed, do you think these drivers shouldn't be on the road either?

OK, so let's just continue recklessly driving too fast, regardless of any speed limits (it's not as if there aren't any warning signs is it?) So your 'argument' is that accidents happen, regardless of whether we can or should do anything to prevent them and that, because cars raise lots of money for the government (not sure what your point is, there) cars take precedence in the New Forest, the police won't do anything about these accidents, and, as people get killed in accidents every day, we should just accept it and not do anything about it? .....And it's me who's supposed to have made the 'child-like argument? Pathetic, 'Torchie' Very childish!!

I think the point is you can be driving well within the speed limit of the road and still have an accident with an animal. There are plenty of roads where visibility is poor and weather can affect also. Sure if everyone drove through the forest at 5mph accidents would probably reduce to zero but that isn't going to happen. You can't just blame drivers 100% when animals can pretty much run in any direction they want and aren't under control.
.
I think considering the 1000's of cars and 1000's of animals 4 collisions is good! Also it says collisions not deaths. i've seen drivers slowly drive into stationary cows in Beaulieu to move them so does this count as a collision?

Solomon's Boot wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Solomon's Boot wrote:
'Only four'.....Isn't that bad enough? It beggars belief how drivers can smash into such a huge animal. These **** should NOT be on our roads!

I think the child-like simplicity of your argument suggests that you may have made the post before going to school. Until the animals are fenced in there will continue to be accidents and as society is based on motorised transport which yields a lot of revenue for the government, the cars will always be on the roads of the forest. The owners of the animals prefer to replace the 'fallen stock' to continue their Commoning rights, the Police are too busy to offer an effective deterrent and the forest roads get busier every year. Every single day there are accidents on the roads where people are maimed or killed, do you think these drivers shouldn't be on the road either?

OK, so let's just continue
recklessly driving too fast, regardless of any speed limits (it's not as if there aren't any warning signs is it?)

So your 'argument' is that accidents happen, regardless of whether we can or should do anything to prevent them and that, because cars raise lots of money for the government (not sure what your point is, there) cars take precedence in the New Forest, the police won't do anything about these accidents, and, as people get killed in accidents every day, we should just accept it and not do anything about it?

.....And it's me who's supposed to have made the 'child-like argument?

Pathetic, 'Torchie' Very childish!!

The statistics for accidents on the forest aren't a state secret and have remained largely unchanged in the face of many attempts to reduce them. No-one goes out looking for an accident but most adult thinkers are capable of working out that free roaming animals and motor vehicles do not make happy bedfellows. As I pointed out earlier if you'd bother to read it, no one party has any real interest in doing something concrete to eradicate the accidents and 'only four' is seen as quite acceptable or something would be done. I'm presenting you with cold hard facts that you seem to have a problem dealing with but life is like that so live with it.