View Full Version : Slow down call to save lives - and cash
I read in the local rag that there's a new campaign to reduce speeding in an effort to save the NHS
cash. Quote : 'The Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, campaigning for drivers to slow
down, says one speed-related crash resulting in serious injuries can cost a hospital up to
£100,000.'
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D51262F04
Is this part of a national campaign?
Pauline
Call me a sentimentalist, but isn't the avoidance of serious injuries reason enough?
Chris Walker
Originally posted by Pauline
I read in the local rag that there's a new campaign to reduce speeding in an effort to save the NHS
cash. Quote : 'The Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, campaigning for drivers to slow
down, says one speed-related crash resulting in serious injuries can cost a hospital up to
£100,000.'
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D51262F04
Is this part of a national campaign?
Pauline
"Pauline" <dabhand@zworgnotthisbit.com> wrote in message
news:b6eemv$1iq$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> I read in the local rag that there's a new campaign to reduce speeding in
an
> effort to save the NHS cash. Quote : 'The Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, campaigning
> for drivers to slow down, says one speed-related crash resulting in serious injuries can cost a
> hospital up to £100,000.'
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D51262F04
>
> Is this part of a national campaign?
>
> Pauline
Don't know about a new campaign, measures have been introduced country wide
to slow urban traffic down for some years now. In Hull, 25% of the city is
now 20 mph max speed and casualties are at an all time low, so it does work.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net (http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/)
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:40:31 +0000 (UTC), "Pauline" <dabhand@zworgnotthisbit.com> wrote:
>I read in the local rag that there's a new campaign to reduce speeding in an effort to save the NHS
>cash. Quote : 'The Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, campaigning for drivers to slow
>down, says one speed-related crash resulting in serious injuries can cost a hospital up to
>£100,000.'
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?D51262F04
>Is this part of a national campaign?
It's just spin from a speed camera partnership press officer, however, in as much as "road safety"
via speed cameras is a national campaign, then yes it is.
Sadly they have yet to determine that speed cameras or speed reductions reduce accidents or
casualties. Indeed, no reductions are visible in any of the national figures which could reasonably
be attributed to speed cameras.
The fatality rate indicator shows an extremely worrying loss of performance since we based our road
safety policy on speed and speed reduction. I blame speed cameras and the policies which support
them for causing about 5,000 extra road deaths to date.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/) please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
In article <5lhl8vsb4hv56v44229b8uae1gntrqm42b@4ax.com>,
psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk says...
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:40:31 +0000 (UTC), "Pauline" <dabhand@zworgnotthisbit.com> wrote:
> >Is this part of a national campaign?
Pauline, you have to be careful about mentioning speed around here or our resident monkey is liable
to put in an appearance.
Colin
"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:5lhl8vsb4hv56v44229b8uae1gntrqm42b@4ax.com...
> Sadly they have yet to determine that speed cameras or speed reductions reduce accidents or
> casualties. Indeed, no reductions are visible in any of the national figures which could
> reasonably be attributed to speed cameras.
>
> The fatality rate indicator shows an extremely worrying loss of performance since we based our
> road safety policy on speed and speed reduction. I blame speed cameras and the policies which
> support them for causing about 5,000 extra road deaths to date.
So you would say that a child being hit at 40 mph has the same chance of survival as one hit as 20
mph? You might have seen a recent Auto Express article that featured Hull's 115 separate 20 mph
zones and how they have helped reduce ped and cyclist casualties, if not I might be able to find
the article. No speed cameras exist , it's all physical impediments, so it's not for revenue
generation.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net (http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/)
"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <wafflycathcs@aol.comtapeworm> wrote in message
news:20030402065847.28269.00000253@mb-cj.aol.com...
> >
> >"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:5lhl8vsb4hv56v44229b8uae1gntrqm42b@4ax.com...
>
> Usual drivel from resident ar*ehole snipped ...
>
> Then Simon wrote quite sensibly ...
>
> > So you would say that a child being hit at 40 mph has the same chance of
> > survival as one hit as 20 mph? You might have seen a recent Auto Express
> > article that featured Hull's 115 separate 20 mph zones and how they have
> > helped reduce ped and cyclist casualties, if not I might be able to find
the
> >article. No speed cameras exist , it's all physical impediments, so it's
not
> >for revenue generation.
>
> Ye gods, Simon, it doesn't take the resident ar*ehole long from chipping
in
> with his usual drivel, does it. The man should be sectioned ;-)
I'm waiting for him to show me the figures that prove 20 mph limits don't reduce casualties. Then
I can say that I was obviously reading a blatantly biased anti-car article (based on incorrect
data) in that well known organ of anti-car tirades --- Auto Express.
Simon
"Colin Blackburn" <colin.blackburn@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.18f4d96b4d83153d98989d@localhost...
> In article <5lhl8vsb4hv56v44229b8uae1gntrqm42b@4ax.com>,
> psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk says...
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:40:31 +0000 (UTC), "Pauline" <dabhand@zworgnotthisbit.com> wrote:
> > >Is this part of a national campaign?
>
> Pauline, you have to be careful about mentioning speed around here or our resident monkey is
> liable to put in an appearance.
Too late. I mentioned ze var -- but I tink ve got avay viv it!!
Oh no -- the resident monkey popped out of the woodwork. I thought he had given up & gone
away. Shame!!
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:37:21 +0100, "Simon Mason" <simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sadly they have yet to determine that speed cameras or speed reductions reduce accidents or
>> casualties. Indeed, no reductions are visible in any of the national figures which could
>> reasonably be attributed to speed cameras.
>> The fatality rate indicator shows an extremely worrying loss of performance since we based our
>> road safety policy on speed and speed reduction. I blame speed cameras and the policies which
>> support them for causing about 5,000 extra road deaths to date.
>So you would say that a child being hit at 40 mph has the same chance of survival as one hit
>as 20 mph?
I deny the link between free travelling speed and impact speed. Sometimes impact speeds are higher
when free travelling speeds are lower. In fact, nationwide injury accidents are more likely to
result in deaths or serious injuries in 20mph zones than 30mph zones.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/percentages.html
>You might have seen a recent Auto Express article that featured Hull's 115 separate 20 mph zones
>and how they have helped reduce ped and cyclist casualties, if not I might be able to find the
>article. No speed cameras exist , it's all physical impediments, so it's not for revenue
>generation.
I totally accept that in certain circumstances traffic calming in general might be beneficial. When
I investigated the benefits for Hull, which showed something like a 30% improvement, I also
discovered that adjacent towns showed a near comparable 25% improvement over the same period. I
didn't find much of interest and didn't write it up.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/) please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
wafflycathcs@aol.comtapeworm (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote in message
news:<20030402065847.28269.00000253@mb-cj.aol.com>...
> >
> >"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:5lhl8vsb4hv56v44229b8uae1gntrqm42b@4ax.com...
>
> Usual drivel from resident ar*ehole snipped ...
Nah, he's not *resident*, he's more like one of those annoying nurdy neighbours that drop by from
time to time. You try to be polite to them, but in the end you just have this irresistable urge to
tell them to f*** off. I think he holds a glass up against the wall waiting to hear the word "SPEED"
then next thing you know he's barged in uninvited :-)
Have fun!
Graeme
wafflycathcs@aol.comtapeworm (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote in message
news:<20030402065847.28269.00000253@mb-cj.aol.com>...
> Ye gods, Simon, it doesn't take the resident ar*ehole long from chipping in with his usual drivel,
> does it. The man should be sectioned ;-)
I think the bright yellow speed cameras are dangerous as motorists automatically brake when they see
them, even if they're already within the limit in a lot of cases. They obviously have no idea either
what the limit is or how fast they're actually going. The answer of course is to hide the cameras
but this brings predictable cries of "unfair" from the motoring lobby.
Similarly the calibration marks painted on the road are too easily seen. Surely a paint could be
used that would show up in the camera's flash but not be obvious to the naked eye - the opposite of
the supposedly disappearing number plate - or, even better, a calibration template could be laid
over the photograph with no need to mark the road at all.
--
Dave...
ChrisW <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:<3e8ad0df$2_1@news.chariot.net.au>...
> Call me a sentimentalist, but isn't the avoidance of serious injuries reason enough?
No, there has to be a cost-benefit analysis. We could stop all motor related injuries by banning
motor vehicles altogether. Even most cyclists wouldn't go that far, and by extension you would also
have to ban cycling as cyclists sometimes hurt themselves or each other or pedestrians without the
help of motor vehicles. The argument that any measure that reduces serious injuries must be
worthwhile is bogus.
--
Dave...
dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk (Dave Kahn) wrote: ( Similarly the calibration marks painted on the road are
too easily ) seen. Surely a paint could be used that would show up in the camera's ( flash but not
be obvious to the naked eye - the opposite of the ) supposedly disappearing number plate - or,
even better, a calibration ( template could be laid over the photograph with no need to mark the )
road at all.
If the calibration marks are not physically on the road it is too easy for the accused to argue that
they are not accurate. Surely the right thing to do is to put calibration marks on much more of the
road, if not on all of it?
Paul "Wanker!" Smith psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk of Scotland, UK wrote:
> I deny the link between free travelling speed and impact speed. Sometimes impact speeds are
> higher when free travelling speeds are lower.
Are you suggesting that "free travelling speed" and "impact speed" are negatively correlated, that
they are entirely uncorrelated, or that the positive correlation is so small as to be insignificant
for your purpose?
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Geraint.Jones@wolfson.oxford.ac-spam.uk (Geraint
Jones) wrote:
>> I deny the link between free travelling speed and impact speed. Sometimes impact speeds are
>> higher when free travelling speeds are lower.
>Are you suggesting that "free travelling speed" and "impact speed" are negatively correlated, that
>they are entirely uncorrelated, or that the positive correlation is so small as to be insignificant
>for your purpose?
Most importantly, I suggest that "Within the range of influence of any imaginable degree of
increased speed enforcement (using current technologies and enforcement systems) the correlation
between free travelling speeds and impact speeds is between zero and negative, except perhaps at
some very special accident black spot sites."
i.e Excessive speed enforcement tends to increase accident severity.
Please don't try to turn this into a semantic argument. Fully detailed definitions would take a long
time to draft properly. I hope I've made my point. I can also make several other related points.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/) please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
In article <j7nl8v4bd21e972attofie2s4po9di2e7j@4ax.com>,
psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk says...
> I deny the link between free travelling speed and impact speed. Sometimes impact speeds are higher
> when free travelling speeds are lower. In fact, nationwide injury accidents are more likely to
> result in deaths or serious injuries in 20mph zones than 30mph zones.
>
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/percentages.html
Completely meaningless unless you show the KSI numbers for those self same streets when they were
30mph limits. You are comparing apples and oranges.
By the way, when are you going to remove those trend-lines on graphs 3.1 onwards which you have
admitted are misleading and said that you would remove?
Colin
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:25:36 +0100, Colin Blackburn <colin.blackburn@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I deny the link between free travelling speed and impact speed. Sometimes impact speeds are
>> higher when free travelling speeds are lower. In fact, nationwide injury accidents are more
>> likely to result in deaths or serious injuries in 20mph zones than 30mph zones.
>> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/percentages.html
>Completely meaningless unless you show the KSI numbers for those self same streets when they were
>30mph limits. You are comparing apples and oranges.
>By the way, when are you going to remove those trend-lines on graphs 3.1 onwards which you have
>admitted are misleading and said that you would remove?
The trend lines and supporting text are fine. There's no extrapolation which caused most of the
discussions.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/) please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
Paul "Wanker!" Smith psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk of Scotland, UK wrote: ( On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:19:05
+0000 (UTC), ) Geraint.Jones@wolfson.oxford.ac-spam.uk (Geraint Jones) wrote: ( ) >> I deny the link
between free travelling speed and impact speed. ( >> Sometimes impact speeds are higher when free
travelling speeds are ) >> lower. ( ) >Are you suggesting that "free travelling speed" and "impact
speed" are ( >negatively correlated, that they are entirely uncorrelated, or that the ) >positive
correlation is so small as to be insignificant for your purpose? ( ) Most importantly, I suggest
that "Within the range of influence of any ( imaginable degree of increased speed enforcement (using
current ) technologies and enforcement systems) the correlation between free ( travelling speeds and
impact speeds is between zero and negative, ) except perhaps at some very special accident black
spot sites."
I see. I was concerned that I was unable to disagree with the precise wording which you used, since
undoubtedly there are rare occasions on which the most unlikely of things happens, and so indeed
"sometimes" the most bizarre things happen.
Thank you for the clarification for which I confidently expect to enjoy watching you produce
evidence, should you choose to do so.
Now, these "very special accident black spot sites", they would be where impacts happen, would they?
) Please don't try to turn this into a semantic argument.
Would you prefer a purely syntactic argument where we took no interest at all in the meaning of the
words used? I could do you one of those if you wanted.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:43:42 +0100, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Most importantly, I suggest that "Within the range of influence of any imaginable degree of
>>increased speed enforcement (using current technologies and enforcement systems) the correlation
>>between free travelling speeds and impact speeds is between zero and negative, except perhaps at
>>some very special accident black spot sites."
>I'm sorry, but nothing can be between zero and negative. It would imply that there was something
>between zero and negative, which there is not. Once you go below zero you are, by definition, in
>negative no matter how infinitesimal your movement.
You're quite correct. Still I don't suppose anyone had trouble understanding what I meant. Why is it
worth bothering with such semantic or detail arguments especially when I noted:
"Please don't try to turn this into a semantic argument. Fully detailed definitions would take
a long time to draft properly. I hope I've made my point. I can also make several other
related points."
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/) please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
"Paul Smith" <psmith@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
> Most importantly, I suggest that "Within the range of influence of any imaginable degree of
> increased speed enforcement (using current technologies and enforcement systems) the correlation
> between free travelling speeds and impact speeds is between zero and negative, except perhaps at
> some very special accident black spot sites."
Perhaps "people on the whole judge their 'safe' speed fairly well, but leave greater margins for
error in places with lower hazard densities" ... "where hazard densities are random and unexpected,
and have a low possibility of happening, people ignore this in their choice of speed" ie people
drive too fast in towns.
> i.e Excessive speed enforcement tends to increase accident severity.
By what mechanisms? Apart from ones in your imagination based around stupid and 2 dimensional women
that you can conjure up in your imagination.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
