Diane Abbott on the speedophiles.

[Matt B]

Earl Purple wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> We need policies designed to restore respect and harmony amongst road
>> users. Policies designed to remove the de facto priority given to
>> motorists, and ensure they are obliged to use their eyes and their ears
>> and their brains. All road users need the consent of all other
>> interested parties before they assume precedence and occupy any
>> particular piece of the road in front of anyone else. Only then will we
>> have a chance, not of reducing casualties by a few percent each year,
>> but of achieving the more worthy goal of virtually eliminating them
>> altogether.
>
> Recent policies have been very anti-car in such a way to frustrate
> drivers and frustrated drivers are bad drivers.

Yes. We need to allow human interactions, not regulation, dictate
traffic flow in our towns.

> Pinch points are put there to try to slow down traffic but all it does
> is endanger cyclists.

A waste of space, and dangerous. Yes.

> As a cyclist I would rather vehicles have a wider
> road to overtake me even a few mph over the speed limit than have them
> trying to squeeze past me around a pinch point.

I agree. Restore all of the space to be available as highway for all users.

> Main roads are littered with loads of red lights, even crossing tiny
> little side roads, plus pedestrian lights with very long red phases for
> the traffic rather than a flashing amber phase. So not surprisingly
> traffic rat-runs to avoid these main roads.

Or, as a famous 'traffic engineer' was quoted a s saying recently "We
only want traffic lights where they are useful and I haven't found
anywhere where they are useful yet".

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> [... snipped more of the usual ...]

Can you explain, in your own words, how you think speed limits are set,
and why you think that the 'magic number' painted in the circle can
possibly apply to all the situations within its realm.

When you've done that, can you also explain why you think allowing
motorists to drive at a safe and negotiated speed, which will probably
generally be somewhere below 20 mph in most town centre situations, is
undesirable.

It seems to me that you haven't thought this through. It appears to me
that you would rather 1000s are killed each year on our roads, than
admit speed limits and speed limit enforcement are not delivering
worthwhile improvements, and allow changes to be made instead, which
could virtually eliminate road casualties in our town centres.

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Jeff York wrote:
> >> "ROFL... Only by the Police, RoSPA, RoADA, IAM, and a few others.. "
> >>
> >> Source please.
> >
> > They all have websites... Go see..
>
> Since you put it so nicely, I did. Assuming that you do in fact refer
> to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, I could not find
> anything referring to COAST in the Road Safety part of their site (I
> didn't look through it exhaustively, but I tried what I thought were the
> "obvious" pages), nor does it appear in their site search engine, nor
> did I get any joy from Google when trying searches like "rospa coast" or
> "rospa coast driving"
>
> Seems they don't use it very extensively.
>
>



Making up a silly acronym and pretending the police endorse it is one
thing. Deliberately telling lies about what Dr Mountain's research
concluded is another thing altogether. Her research proved that speed
cameras work. The appendix red herring does not detract from this point
at all no matter how much Jeff and trollB maintain it is the Holy
Grail.

They are misrepresenting a published researcher's work. They're telling
lies about someone's research and trying to smear a peer-reviewed
collection of data.

It's shameful, witness their reluctance to actually check whether their
interpretation is correct, their evasion when asked to check whether
what they claim is true, their shiftiness when challenged.

It's quite straightforward, Dr Mountain's research demonstrated the
efficacy of speed cameras. Jeff and trollB interpret the data in a
radically different way, refuse to say how they arrived at their
conclusion and shy away from any pertinent questions as to why they
think they're right and a published scientist is wrong.

Remind you of anyone?


>
> -dan

 

[spindrift]

Jeff York wrote:
PPOR.

(That stands for "Post Proof Or Retract" by the way)... And of course,
you won't be able to, as I'm completely consistent in what I say,
assert and in the references I make.



Okey dokey.

You said that Dr Linda Mountain's work did not prove that speed cameras
work.

You have zero evidence for this claim.

The reality:

Linda Mountain, University of Liverpool, who has spent many years
investigating RTM, and had done some work in relation to a small sample
of cameras, was commissioned by PA and UCL to undertake a piece of work
using her methodology for inclusion in the report.

It estimates that the average scheme effect of the 216 sites on Fatal
and Serious Collisions, after allowing for both trends and RTM, is as
follows:

52 fixed cameras - 24% reduction
164 mobile cameras - 17% reduction
The report concludes that if these results were typical, cameras would
still provide substantial and valuable casualty benefits.

http://www.scottishsafetycameras.com/Our-Success.aspx


You claimed that these results were statistically insignificant.


I retract nothing.

You lied about what Linda Mountains research said. You deliberately
misinterpreted published evidence. You've slandered an academic in your
desperate attempt to prove your point. What you claimed Dr Mountain
said is not true at all.


You are a liar.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> The reality:

No, a direct quote from a speed camera website.

Which is actually quoting, out-of-context, from _Appendix H_ of the very
same report that yesterday you declared to be "an obscure reference you
assume noone will check and crow about an appendix".

So, you will accept a quote which appears to put cameras in a positive
light. Why won't you accept the quote from exactly the same appendix
which says:

"Thus RTM accounts for about three fifths of the observed reduction in
FSCs with the effects of the cameras and trend each accounting for a
fifth."???

Which supports the claim made yesterday that cameras were only
responsible for 20% of the observed collision reduction effect where
they are used, which you declared to be "utter garbage" - remember?

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

Matt B wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > The reality:
>
> No, a direct quote from a speed camera website.
>
> Which is actually quoting, out-of-context, from _Appendix H_ of the very
> same report that yesterday you declared to be "an obscure reference you
> assume noone will check and crow about an appendix".
>
> So, you will accept a quote which appears to put cameras in a positive
> light. Why won't you accept the quote from exactly the same appendix
> which says:
>
> "Thus RTM accounts for about three fifths of the observed reduction in
> FSCs with the effects of the cameras and trend each accounting for a
> fifth."???
>
> Which supports the claim made yesterday that cameras were only
> responsible for 20% of the observed collision reduction effect where
> they are used, which you declared to be "utter garbage" - remember?
>
> --
> Matt B


Could you answer the question please? Jeff's lies about Dr Mountain's
research were that the research did not demonstrate that cameras were
effective.


Is this true, yes or no?

Fifth time of asking...

 

[spindrift]

Jeff York wrote:
The *one thing* that I
have stated over and over is that I do not cast any doubt whatsoever
on the *accuracy* of her work.

Apart, of course, from when you claimed her work did not establish the
efficacy of speed cameras.

You are flatly contradicting her findings that sped cameras save lives.

In what way is this not casting doubt on her work please?

You claim she's wrong, that's a pretty clear evidence of doubt in your
mind that I'm offering help to dispel, so why not answer the question
you've now been asked seven times?

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Could you answer the question please? Jeff's lies about Dr Mountain's
> research were that the research did not demonstrate that cameras were
> effective.

During 2005, whilst the speed camera four-year evaluation was being
prepared, the bombshell landed. A piece of research emerged that
questioned the effectiveness of speed cameras. The report abstract[1]
states:

"[about speed humps and cushions] they were the only type of scheme to
have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents".

This implies that speed cameras had *no* significant impact on fatal and
serious accidents. Newspapers reported these findings in various ways:

- The Sun: "Cameras don't cut deaths" [2]
- The Mail on Sunday: "The proof that speed cameras don't save lives"
via [3]
- Click Press: "University Study Shows Speed Cameras Do Not Make Roads
Safer" [4]
- Irish Independent: "Speed cameras... the fast and the furious" [5]

[1] (http://tinyurl.com/ykckah)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4c13723939ef264bfb35e4f045b47fd7
[2] http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005230510,00.html
[3]
http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_proof_that_speed_cameras_dont_save_lives.asp
[4] http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/2088005cp.shtml
[3]
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1406811&issue_id=12550

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

Matt B wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> >
> > Could you answer the question please? Jeff's lies about Dr Mountain's
> > research were that the research did not demonstrate that cameras were
> > effective.
>
> During 2005, whilst the speed camera four-year evaluation was being
> prepared, the bombshell landed. A piece of research emerged that
> questioned the effectiveness of speed cameras. The report abstract[1]
> states:
>
> "[about speed humps and cushions] they were the only type of scheme to
> have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents".
>
> This implies that speed cameras had *no* significant impact on fatal and
> serious accidents. Newspapers reported these findings in various ways:
>
> - The Sun: "Cameras don't cut deaths" [2]




> - The Mail on Sunday: "The proof that speed cameras don't save lives"
> via [3]
> - Click Press: "University Study Shows Speed Cameras Do Not Make Roads
> Safer" [4]
> - Irish Independent: "Speed cameras... the fast and the furious" [5]
>
> [1] (http://tinyurl.com/ykckah)
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4c13723939ef264bfb35e4f045b47fd7
> [2] http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005230510,00.html
> [3]
> http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_proof_that_speed_cameras_dont_save_lives.asp
> [4] http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/2088005cp.shtml
> [3]
> http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1406811&issue_id=12550
>
> --
> Matt B


Could you answer the question please?

Ninth time of asking.

It's a simple yes or no.

Did Dr Mountain's research conclude, as Jeff claims, that speed cameras
did not work?

 

[Will Cove]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1163154653.027542.109760
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Could you answer the question please? Jeff's lies about Dr Mountain's
> research were that the research did not demonstrate that cameras were
> effective.

Assuming that cameras are effective for a moment (and I know that's
playing devil's advocate), we do not know whether they could be better
used. As Dr Stone wrote (of current speed camera policy):

"This 'cost recovery' program has failed except for the HMT requirement
that it should be self-financing. There has been a failure to design
the program so that it would provide the information needed to evaluate
alternative ways of getting the benefits of speed camera enforcement.
The emphasis on political acceptability has led the program down a cul
de sac in which essential public trust has been lost. The mistakes
already made should be openly recognised, and the program should be
subjected to a root-and-branch rethink."

So, what if we coupled the speed detectors to traffic lights instead of
cameras and mounted those cameras to enforce jumping of those lights. In
contrast to the current system where an alleged offender might not even
know they'd transgressed until more than a week after the offence,
speeders would know about it right away. There'd also be much less
wheedling about who was driving, claims of cloned plates, etc. Speed and
you get a red light (possibly with waiting time dependent on how fast).
Since many speed to save time, having to stop "in the sin bin" would mean
their behaviour led to exactly the opposite of their aim and I suspect
that many would soon get the message. Most importantly, the public would
not see these speed detectors as a stealth tax and would thus be more
likely to accept that they were there for safety. Would this scheme
provide better safety results than the current use of cameras? We don't
know because even though similar schemes are successfully used in other
countries, our own government is down Dr Stone's cul de sac and seems
disinclined to give it a try. No doubt there are other ways to use
automated speed detection. Unfortunately we only have mendacious
partnerships whose primary objective is not safety but revenue generation
- and it will stay that way as long as the Government continue to insist
that any scheme be self-financing.

Having said that, I repeat my earlier comment that speed is never the
primary cause. At best it is a symptom. If your speed is excessive,
something else has gone wrong to cause that excessive speed and if you
address the real primary cause then speed automatically falls into line.
Speed cameras are like Beecham's Powder - a symptomatic treatment that
does absolutely nothing to cure the illness itself.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> Could you answer the question please? Jeff's lies about Dr Mountain's
>>> research were that the research did not demonstrate that cameras were
>>> effective.
>> During 2005, whilst the speed camera four-year evaluation was being
>> prepared, the bombshell landed. A piece of research emerged that
>> questioned the effectiveness of speed cameras. The report abstract[1]
>> states:
>>
>> "[about speed humps and cushions] they were the only type of scheme to
>> have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents".
>>
>> This implies that speed cameras had *no* significant impact on fatal and
>> serious accidents. Newspapers reported these findings in various ways:
>>
>> - The Sun: "Cameras don't cut deaths" [2]
>> - The Mail on Sunday: "The proof that speed cameras don't save lives"
>> via [3]
>> - Click Press: "University Study Shows Speed Cameras Do Not Make Roads
>> Safer" [4]
>> - Irish Independent: "Speed cameras... the fast and the furious" [5]
>>
>> [1] (http://tinyurl.com/ykckah)
>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4c13723939ef264bfb35e4f045b47fd7
>> [2] http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005230510,00.html
>> [3]
>> http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_proof_that_speed_cameras_dont_save_lives.asp
>> [4] http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/2088005cp.shtml
>> [3]
>> http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1406811&issue_id=12550
>
> Could you answer the question please?
>
> It's a simple yes or no.
>
> Did Dr Mountain's research conclude, as Jeff claims, that speed cameras
> did not work?

What do you mean by "work":
(1) Reduces average speed?
(2) Has a significant effect on serious and fatal accidents?
(3) Has a significant effect on minor accidents?
(4) Raises plenty of revenue?

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

Matt B wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >> spindrift wrote:
> >>> Could you answer the question please? Jeff's lies about Dr Mountain's
> >>> research were that the research did not demonstrate that cameras were
> >>> effective.
> >> During 2005, whilst the speed camera four-year evaluation was being
> >> prepared, the bombshell landed. A piece of research emerged that
> >> questioned the effectiveness of speed cameras. The report abstract[1]
> >> states:
> >>
> >> "[about speed humps and cushions] they were the only type of scheme to
> >> have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents".
> >>
> >> This implies that speed cameras had *no* significant impact on fatal and
> >> serious accidents. Newspapers reported these findings in various ways:
> >>
> >> - The Sun: "Cameras don't cut deaths" [2]
> >> - The Mail on Sunday: "The proof that speed cameras don't save lives"
> >> via [3]
> >> - Click Press: "University Study Shows Speed Cameras Do Not Make Roads
> >> Safer" [4]
> >> - Irish Independent: "Speed cameras... the fast and the furious" [5]
> >>
> >> [1] (http://tinyurl.com/ykckah)
> >> http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4c13723939ef264bfb35e4f045b47fd7
> >> [2] http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005230510,00.html
> >> [3]
> >> http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_proof_that_speed_cameras_dont_save_lives.asp
> >> [4] http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/2088005cp.shtml
> >> [3]
> >> http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1406811&issue_id=12550
> >
> > Could you answer the question please?
> >
> > It's a simple yes or no.
> >
> > Did Dr Mountain's research conclude, as Jeff claims, that speed cameras
> > did not work?
>
> What do you mean by "work":
> (1) Reduces average speed?
> (2) Has a significant effect on serious and fatal accidents?
> (3) Has a significant effect on minor accidents?
> (4) Raises plenty of revenue?
>
> --
> Matt B


The question is re-posted four times above. Jeff''s quote has also been
reposted four times.

Jeff denies that Dr Mountain showed that speed cameras are effective.

The same question has been re-posted nine times.

For the last time, here it is again;


Jeff claimed that Dr Mountain's research does not support the use of
speed cameras. You stated this explicitly. Do you stand by this? Yes or

no? Sixth time of asking.

Bear this in mind before you answer:


Linda Mountain, University of Liverpool, who has spent many years
investigating RTM, and had done some work in relation to a small sample

of cameras, was commissioned by PA and UCL to undertake a piece of work

using her methodology for inclusion in the report.


It estimates that the average scheme effect of the 216 sites on Fatal
and Serious Collisions, after allowing for both trends and RTM, is as
follows:


52 fixed cameras - 24% reduction
164 mobile cameras - 17% reduction
The report concludes that if these results were typical, cameras would
still provide substantial and valuable casualty benefits.


http://www.scottishsafetycameras.com/Our-Success.aspx


Yes or no?

Tenth time of asking.

 

[spindrift]

Will Cove wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1163154653.027542.109760
> @k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Could you answer the question please? Jeff's lies about Dr Mountain's
> > research were that the research did not demonstrate that cameras were
> > effective.
>
> Assuming that cameras are effective for a moment (and I know that's
> playing devil's advocate), we do not know whether they could be better
> used. As Dr Stone wrote (of current speed camera policy):
>
> "This 'cost recovery' program has failed except for the HMT requirement
> that it should be self-financing. There has been a failure to design
> the program so that it would provide the information needed to evaluate
> alternative ways of getting the benefits of speed camera enforcement.
> The emphasis on political acceptability has led the program down a cul
> de sac in which essential public trust has been lost. The mistakes
> already made should be openly recognised, and the program should be
> subjected to a root-and-branch rethink."
>
> So, what if we coupled the speed detectors to traffic lights instead of
> cameras and mounted those cameras to enforce jumping of those lights. In
> contrast to the current system where an alleged offender might not even
> know they'd transgressed until more than a week after the offence,
> speeders would know about it right away. There'd also be much less
> wheedling about who was driving, claims of cloned plates, etc. Speed and
> you get a red light (possibly with waiting time dependent on how fast).
> Since many speed to save time, having to stop "in the sin bin" would mean
> their behaviour led to exactly the opposite of their aim and I suspect
> that many would soon get the message. Most importantly, the public would
> not see these speed detectors as a stealth tax and would thus be more
> likely to accept that they were there for safety. Would this scheme
> provide better safety results than the current use of cameras? We don't
> know because even though similar schemes are successfully used in other
> countries, our own government is down Dr Stone's cul de sac and seems
> disinclined to give it a try. No doubt there are other ways to use
> automated speed detection. Unfortunately we only have mendacious
> partnerships whose primary objective is not safety but revenue generation
> - and it will stay that way as long as the Government continue to insist
> that any scheme be self-financing.
>
> Having said that, I repeat my earlier comment that speed is never the
> primary cause. At best it is a symptom. If your speed is excessive,
> something else has gone wrong to cause that excessive speed and if you
> address the real primary cause then speed automatically falls into line.
> Speed cameras are like Beecham's Powder - a symptomatic treatment that
> does absolutely nothing to cure the illness itself.


Jeff claims that Dr Mountain's research does not prove that cameras are
effective.

Dr Mountain says:

52 fixed cameras - 24% reduction
164 mobile cameras - 17% reduction
The report concludes that if these results were typical, cameras would
still provide substantial and valuable casualty benefits.


http://www.scottishsafetycameras.com/Our-Success.aspx


So is Jeff right when he says that Dr Mountain's work does not support
the use of cameras, when Dr Mountain's conclusion, yet again, is that
they provide "substantial benefits"?

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Jeff claimed that Dr Mountain's research does not support the use of
> speed cameras.

No he didn't. Looking back up the thread this is where we started:

spindrift wrote:
Straightforward question, do you think Linda Mountain accepted a bribe
in order to prove with peer-reviewed data that speed cameras save
lives?

As far as saving lives are concerned the implication from the report
abstract that I quoted[1] is that speed cameras have *no* significant
impact on fatal and serious accidents given that the abstract states:

"[about speed humps and cushions] they were the only type of scheme to
have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents" (i.e. speed
cameras don't).

That's why I asked what /you/ meant by "work". Because speed cameras
apparently /do/ reduce speed, and they /do/ reduce minor accidents, and
we know they /do/ raise plenty of revenue. What they are not,
apparently, significantly good at else, presumably, the abstract would
have said they also were, is having a significant impact on fatal and
serious accidents.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/ykckah

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

Matt B wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> >
> > Jeff claimed that Dr Mountain's research does not support the use of
> > speed cameras.
>
> No he didn't. Looking back up the thread this is where we started:
>
> spindrift wrote:
> Straightforward question, do you think Linda Mountain accepted a bribe
> in order to prove with peer-reviewed data that speed cameras save
> lives?
>
> As far as saving lives are concerned the implication from the report
> abstract that I quoted[1] is that speed cameras have *no* significant
> impact on fatal and serious accidents given that the abstract states:
>
> "[about speed humps and cushions] they were the only type of scheme to
> have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents" (i.e. speed
> cameras don't).
>
> That's why I asked what /you/ meant by "work". Because speed cameras
> apparently /do/ reduce speed, and they /do/ reduce minor accidents, and
> we know they /do/ raise plenty of revenue. What they are not,
> apparently, significantly good at else, presumably, the abstract would
> have said they also were, is having a significant impact on fatal and
> serious accidents.
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/ykckah
>
> --
> Matt B

So , afvter twelve attempts to get you to reply to the question, your
answer is no.

You contradict Dr Mountain's findings but offer zero evidence beyond
your own subjective "implication" theory.

You say you are right and a published researcher is wrong.

Remember what I said about speedophile tactic #12- seize upon a buried
part of an official report and claim it collapses all published
evidence?

You've lied.

You're misrepresenting a published researcher's evidence.

You're lying about someone else's work.



52 fixed cameras - 24% reduction
164 mobile cameras - 17% reduction
The report concludes that if these results were typical, cameras would
still provide substantial and valuable casualty benefits.


http://www.scottishsafetycameras.com/Our-Success.aspx


Fake Coppers.

Encouraging the perversion of justice.

Lie about published evidence.

Smear mud on your number plate.

Accuse pro-safety camera research as corrupted and the researchers as
being bribed.

These are all scummy, low-life tricks. Why are the speedophiles such
unprincipled, unpleasant people:

 

[Will Cove]

Surely the question is not whether cameras are effective but whether
they're the best way of doing things. Dr Stone says that the only
successful element of the current policy is the requirement to be self-
financing. He also noted that the government seem to be up a cul de sac and
that a complete reappraisal of policy was required.

That said ... AFAICT, Dr Mountain concluded that the previously claimed
success of speed cameras had been greatly exagerated. I haven't got the
time to read the entire report. However, the headline figures you quoted
early on in this thread are so out of step with the DfT summary figures
that serious doubt is cast on both. Taken with the BMJ study that
highlighted serious under-reporting in the police data on which the
government figures (and, I suspect Dr Mountain's report) are based I
conclude that we can take the government position - and your claims - as
fatally flawed. GIGO

 

[Will Cove]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote in news:4rjaqiFrsbq2U1
@mid.individual.net:

> That's why I asked what /you/ meant by "work". Because speed cameras
> apparently /do/ reduce speed, and they /do/ reduce minor accidents, and
> we know they /do/ raise plenty of revenue. What they are not,
> apparently, significantly good at else, presumably, the abstract would
> have said they also were, is having a significant impact on fatal and
> serious accidents.

Actually, the recent BMJ study found that there was an approximate 50%
under-reporting of RTA injuries in the police data and when that data was
corrected by extrapolating the BMJ results, there was little change in
injuries. We also know that in some areas (e.g. Cumbria) the fatality rate
has increased despite the greatly increased number of cameras - something
Steve Callaghan (Cumbria's Partnership Manager) has desperately tried to
suppress.

So, we know that they work to reduce average speed and raise revenue, but
they seem to do little, nothing, or worse for safety.

 

[Jeff York]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Jeff York wrote:
>The *one thing* that I
>have stated over and over is that I do not cast any doubt whatsoever
>on the *accuracy* of her work.
>
>Apart, of course, from when you claimed her work did not establish the
>efficacy of speed cameras.

That's not "accuracy" you moron... It's "interpretation". If you can't
tell the difference there's no point in continuing further.

>You are flatly contradicting her findings that sped cameras save lives.
>
>In what way is this not casting doubt on her work please?
>
>You claim she's wrong, that's a pretty clear evidence of doubt in your
>mind that I'm offering help to dispel, so why not answer the question
>you've now been asked seven times?

--
[email protected] (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
Dryden

 

[Jeff York]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dr Mountain says:
>
>52 fixed cameras - 24% reduction
>164 mobile cameras - 17% reduction
>The report concludes that if these results were typical, cameras would
>still provide substantial and valuable casualty benefits.

Actually, Dr Mountain says no such thing. The "conclusion" that claims
substantial benefits is that of the "executive summary" - which quotes
figures before they've been adjusted by Mountain's team.

>http://www.scottishsafetycameras.com/Our-Success.aspx

Still laughing about this one! *So* authoritative!! You silly little
man, you refuse to accept data from "The National Safety Camera
programme - 4 year evaluation report. December 2005" - published by
the DfT because it doesn't support your prejudices, yet have the sheer
gall to quote a camera partnership "aren't we wonderful" press
release.

>So is Jeff right when he says that Dr Mountain's work does not support
>the use of cameras, when Dr Mountain's conclusion, yet again, is that
>they provide "substantial benefits"?

Except, yet again, you're quoting a piece of fiction, taken presumably
from your foetid imagination.

--
[email protected] (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
Dryden

 

[spindrift]

Jeff York wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Dr Mountain says:
> >
> >52 fixed cameras - 24% reduction
> >164 mobile cameras - 17% reduction
> >The report concludes that if these results were typical, cameras would
> >still provide substantial and valuable casualty benefits.
>
> Actually, Dr Mountain says no such thing. The "conclusion" that claims
> substantial benefits is that of the "executive summary" - which quotes
> figures before they've been adjusted by Mountain's team.
>
> >http://www.scottishsafetycameras.com/Our-Success.aspx
>
> Still laughing about this one! *So* authoritative!! You silly little
> man, you refuse to accept data from "The National Safety Camera
> programme - 4 year evaluation report. December 2005" - published by
> the DfT because it doesn't support your prejudices, yet have the sheer
> gall to quote a camera partnership "aren't we wonderful" press
> release.
>
> >So is Jeff right when he says that Dr Mountain's work does not support
> >the use of cameras, when Dr Mountain's conclusion, yet again, is that
> >they provide "substantial benefits"?
>
> Except, yet again, you're quoting a piece of fiction, taken presumably
> from your foetid imagination.
>
> --
> [email protected] (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
> and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..
>
> ... There's pleasure sure in being mad
> That none but madmen know...


Dr. Mountain concludes that even after allowing for RTTM speed cameras
offer real, tangible benefits.

She's confirmed this to me in an email.

You've been invited to check for yourself and ask her.

You choose not to do so.

I draw my own conclusions.