Road regs and lack of enforcement!

[My Name is URL]

Did you really expect them to say "Oh hang on, you're right... we have wasted all that money on a speed camera that made things worse"

You asked for proof that a speed camera hadn't reduced accidents... I provided that proof in the form on an article based on Department for Transport figures.... the rebuttal by the police was seemingly based on no facts or figures at all yet you are believing that as it backs up your point.

Whatever the reason (excuse) for the non reduction, the fact remains that the camera hasn't reduced them.

 

[ATJ]

I gave you DfT figures that are nothing like what was in the article, and of course, the exception does not prove the rule. As I said in my original post that you took such exception to, not all cameras are sensible but the vast majority are.

A fear-mongering article which does not define its sources does not an argument make.

 

[Withnail]

You asked for proof that a speed camera hadn't reduced accidents... I provided that proof in the form on an article based on Department for Transport figures....

Daily Mail articles don't count.

 

[My Name is URL]

I gave you DfT figures that are nothing like what was in the article

Apologies, missed those. I thought it was just a copy and paste of the article.

and of course, the exception does not prove the rule.

An exception or not, you asked for evidence... I gave you evidence in the form of a specific example and you are still wriggling...

As I said in my original post that you took such exception to, not all cameras are sensible but the vast majority are.

I agree with this point and have said so... so not sure what your point is here?

A fear-mongering article which does not define its sources does not an argument make.

Are we still talking about the Daily Mail article here because they quite clearly say that the figures are from the Department for Transport....

Anyway enough, i'm bored so time for bed...

 

[henryscat]

And in the next exciting instalment GK141054 and others will continue their denial of the laws of physics....

 

[tek-monkey]

I assume the DM stats are for the area around one camera, but the DfT stats are for all crashes? In which case that one camera has actually increased accidents, if the stats are correct (I'd like to see where the accidents occured though, and at what speed, just in case that copper was right). The DfT stats still show that speeding causes more fatalities than not speeding, which is kind of obvious really.

Can't really be arsed to read the DM article, but are they just talking about collisions or fatalities? Cos if its just collisions, the two sets of stats cannot really be compared.

 

[shoes]

I wonder if this was put to a vote of every motorist in the country how it would come out. Time for some democracy, and the uprooting of speed cameras, I think.

 

[Trumpet]

Them flashin lights aint natcheral i tells yer, burn em for witches i says.

 

[zakkwylde87]

Jesus it is hard work with some of you in here! I'd prefer to see more coppers out catching speeding motorists. Makes it a bit more of a tricky game then And seen as i know where all the speed cameras are in and around Stafford i do whateveryone else does, speed in between them. And those of us who aren't zombies would surely admit to that... If there were coppers all over the place clocking your speed and then giving pursuit i wouldn't speed at all... Unless i'd been playing too much GTA.

Just wondering... all of these staistics and figures... do any of the fatality ones actually consider the ncap saftey ratings of cars?? Cause i would imagine that they don't If you get a Mercedes ML470 Laucnhing into the side of an old F Reg Escort i really wouldn't fancy my chances if i were in the escort. Where as nearly all new cars with the 5 star n cap rating can almost gauruntee you could easily survive a 40 MPH head on crash... which is very impressive.

Obviously that doesn't mean accidents don't happen or say anything about why they do. But it would definately put a different perspective on the fatality statists and arguments.

 

[tek-monkey]

Again though, not all cars are rated that high. Lowest common denominator and everything.

 

[henryscat]

Nice to see everyone considering pedestrians and cyclists as well as vehicle occupants....

 

[shoes]

Well frankly balls to pedestrians if you're stupid enough to walk out in front of a car or train then you deserve everything you get. And yes that includes keeping control of your kids near a road - it's called being a good parent.

Now for cyclists it all boils down to driver's attitudes to cyclists. Look properly, give them enough room and you're laughing.

 

[henryscat]

i know where all the speed cameras are in and around Stafford i do whateveryone else does, speed in between them.

Because your driving is selfish, inconsiderate, anti social and you are a risk to others.

And not "everyone" speeds.

Where as nearly all new cars with the 5 star n cap rating can almost gauruntee you could easily survive a 40 MPH head on crash... which is very impressive.

Well that's alright then. What about the pedestrian on the end of your bonnet at 40mph?

 

[Withnail]

Now for cyclists it all boils down to driver's attitudes to cyclists

Which is not normally that positive judging from anecdotal evidence.

 

[John Marwood]

Them flashin lights aint natcheral i tells yer, burn em for witches i says.

Eloquently put sire

I look forward to reading your review of social services in The Tatler

 

[henryscat]

I wonder if this was put to a vote of every motorist in the country how it would come out. Time for some democracy, and the uprooting of speed cameras, I think.

Why should be the decision be that of drivers alone - who kill and injure thousands every year. Hardly "democratic".

 

[John Marwood]

I wonder if this was put to a vote of every motorist in the country how it would come out. Time for some democracy, and the uprooting of speed cameras, I think.

Why should be the decision be that of drivers alone - who kill and injure thousands every year. Hardly "democratic".

Letting 'The People Decide' is the biggest mistake any power can make unless of course they already know and the wish the outcome..

 

[tek-monkey]

Well frankly balls to pedestrians if you're stupid enough to walk out in front of a car or train then you deserve everything you get. And yes that includes keeping control of your kids near a road - it's called being a good parent.

What about cars that mount the pavement because the driver is on the phone/eating a burger/an imbecile? What about accidents where all parts os the car don't remain on the road, is it a pedestrians fault if a tool in a BMW rear ends someone onto the pavement? Come off it mate, lots of drivers are tools and you know it. I wouldn't trust half of them to know left from right, you really are crediting them with too much intelligence.

 

[Wyred]

Well frankly balls to pedestrians if you're stupid enough to walk out in front of a car or train then you deserve everything you get. And yes that includes keeping control of your kids near a road - it's called being a good parent.

What about cars that mount the pavement because the driver is on the phone/eating a burger/an imbecile? What about accidents where all parts os the car don't remain on the road, is it a pedestrians fault if a tool in a BMW rear ends someone onto the pavement? Come off it mate, lots of drivers are tools and you know it. I wouldn't trust half of them to know left from right, you really are crediting them with too much intelligence.

I’ve had the experience of a pedestrian land on the bonnet of my van who was on the phone and drinking a large coffee, I was at a standstill on the A501 in London, the woman took evasive action whilst crossing the road to avoid a courier cyclist who moving rather quickly between the stationary traffic….

 

[tek-monkey]

At no point did I say pedestrians or cyclists weren't dumb as well!