Figures etc at SafeSpeed

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Paul Smith, Feb 19, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning the
    UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html

    Comments welcome. (not cross posted)
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
    Tags:


  2. Paul Smith wrote:
    > Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning the
    > UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.
    >
    > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
    >
    > Comments welcome. (not cross posted)

    Oh no, I haven't seen a post from P**l S***h for weeks. I've killfiled him and blocked the thread. I
    urge everyone else to do the same.
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  3. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:45:15 -0000, "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning
    >> the UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

    >> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html

    >> Comments welcome. (not cross posted)

    >Oh no, I haven't seen a post from P**l S***h for weeks. I've killfiled him and blocked the thread.
    >I urge everyone else to do the same.

    That's it! Do the ostrich!
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  4. Robby

    Robby Guest

    I don't understand Mr Smith why is he posting here and just exactly is wrong with using technology
    to catch people breaking the law i.e. speeding. Why is a device for law enforcement bundled with
    driving a vehicle when incapable of controlling said machine due to the effects of alcohol/drug use.
    Lets stop playing games with the speed cameras and those who glorify acts of criminal damage against
    them. You break the speed limit you pay the fine simple. hopefully a little less speed in built up
    areas will see a reduction in injury to all parties when the inevitable happens. So after all that,
    and yes I do drive and sometimes go too fast, but if I trip a camera then it's nobody else fault,
    I'll just pay up and slow down simple. But what I wont do and I promise I wont do is spout facts and
    figures half truths and down right lies in an attempt to justify speeding. The speed limit is set
    live with it.

    Colin Slow down give badgers a chance

    Robby's mate
     
  5. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:43:04 -0000, "robby" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I don't understand Mr Smith why is he posting here and just exactly is wrong with using technology
    >to catch people breaking the law i.e. speeding. Why is a device for law enforcement bundled with
    >driving a vehicle when incapable of controlling said machine due to the effects of alcohol/drug
    >use. Lets stop playing games with the speed cameras and those who glorify acts of criminal damage
    >against them. You break the speed limit you pay the fine simple. hopefully a little less speed in
    >built up areas will see a reduction in injury to all parties when the inevitable happens. So after
    >all that, and yes I do drive and sometimes go too fast, but if I trip a camera then it's nobody
    >else fault, I'll just pay up and slow down simple. But what I wont do and I promise I wont do is
    >spout facts and figures half truths and down right lies in an attempt to justify speeding. The
    >speed limit is set live with it.

    According to projections on the first page referenced, 3,500 may no longer be able to "live with it"
    because they are dead.

    I've posted here (and not cross posted) because one of the inhabitants of uk.r.c expressed
    an interest.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  6. Tim Dunne

    Tim Dunne Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > That's it! Do the ostrich!

    Many of us are not doing any such thing - we're just sick of the sight of an obsessive single issue
    fanatic armed with dodgily interpreted 'statistics' and a tenuous grip on reality.

    HTH, HAND

    Tim
    --
    Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
    chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
    Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
     
  7. Andrew B

    Andrew B Guest

    I not sure why some people have such feelings towards speed cameras. In my experience its the same
    people who react the same way to parking tickets.

    It's VERY simple, so simple, my 2 year old niece could understand.

    YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED

    If you want to avoid the fine SLOW DOWN. I have lost a great number of friends in RTA's both as
    pedestrians, cyclists & drivers. Some of these may have been avoidable !

    All the arguments about cameras being used to raise funds is irrelevant, it is the same as having a
    police officer standing there without the associated costs. It allows the police to place resources
    elsewhere.

    If you stay within the law, you won't get a ticket. I feel that all speed cameras should be set to a
    maximum of 5 mph above the speed limit, if this means more people get caught, so be it.

    Regards,

    Andrew
     
  8. Sda

    Sda Guest

    Hear hear! I couldn't have said it better!

    Steve ;)
    --

    "robby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I don't understand Mr Smith why is he posting here and just exactly is
    wrong
    > with using technology to catch people breaking the law i.e. speeding. Why
    is
    > a device for law enforcement bundled with driving a vehicle when incapable of controlling said
    > machine due to the effects of alcohol/drug use. Lets stop playing games with the speed cameras and
    > those who glorify acts of criminal damage against them. You break the speed limit you pay the fine
    > simple. hopefully a little less speed in built up areas will see a
    reduction
    > in injury to all parties when the inevitable happens. So after all that,
    and
    > yes I do drive and sometimes go too fast, but if I trip a camera then it's nobody else fault, I'll
    > just pay up and slow down simple. But what I wont
    do
    > and I promise I wont do is spout facts and figures half truths and down right lies in an attempt
    > to justify speeding. The speed limit is set live with it.
    >
    > Colin Slow down give badgers a chance
    >
    >
    >
    > Robby's mate
     
  9. Sda

    Sda Guest

    Sorry, I fear my previous message may be misinterpreted.

    I have no sympathy at all for people who break the speed limit, regardless of whether they judge the
    speed limit to be set at the wrong level. The speed is set, and we agree to the limits and all other
    driving/riding laws by being on the road in the first place. If you go over the speed limit and get
    a fine, then it's tough luck - but more worrying it's tough luck on the potential RTA victim. So for
    those who feel it necessary to break the speed limit, please spare a thought for the innocent you
    may be involved with.

    Steve ;0
    --

    "sda" <.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hear hear! I couldn't have said it better!
    >
    > Steve ;)
     
  10. Marc

    Marc Guest

    Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Paul Smith wrote:
    > > Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning
    > > the UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.
    > >
    > > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
    > >
    > > Comments welcome. (not cross posted)
    >
    > Oh no, I haven't seen a post from P**l S***h for weeks. I've killfiled him and blocked the thread.
    > I urge everyone else to do the same.
    > --
    > Michael MacClancy
     
  11. James Hodson

    James Hodson Guest

    On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:14:32 -0000, "Andrew B" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED
    >

    --
    A speed limit is NOT a target.
     
  12. Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning the
    > UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.
    >
    > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
    >
    > Comments welcome. (not cross posted)

    Piss off.
     
  13. W K

    W K Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning the
    > UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.
    >
    > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
    >
    > Comments welcome.

    Your treatment of numbers is silly. Have you any theoretical basis for putting the casualty figures
    as log graphs etc. ?

    No matter what else you say ... you say. "Something has happened to make British roads more
    dangerous since 1993. "

    Rubbish. The roads are safer. simple as that.
     
  14. "James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:14:32 -0000, "Andrew B" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > A speed limit is NOT a target.

    No, but it is a maximum.

    As long as speed limits are appropriate*, then I don't think there is a problem with automated
    enforcement. Speed cameras should be set to as close as zero-tolerance as the technology used can
    measure accurately.

    *They generally are, though I'd like to see more 20MPH zones (minus speed humps mind), dual
    carriageways without at-grade junctions at 60MPH and an 80 MPH motorway speed limit.

    All my opinion, based on laymans observation, with no scientific basis
     
  15. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:03:27 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning
    >> the UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

    >> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html

    >> Comments welcome.

    >Your treatment of numbers is silly.

    Oh no it isn't.

    >Have you any theoretical basis for putting the casualty figures as log graphs etc. ?

    Yes. The annual reduction in fatalities rate has stayed at around 5% per annum for most of the
    period. Such a constant factor reduction shows on a log scale graph as a straight line. That makes
    any change in trend more obvious. (log graphs are also given with a conventional scale for the
    suspicious)

    >No matter what else you say ... you say. "Something has happened to make British roads more
    >dangerous since 1993. "

    >Rubbish. The roads are safer. simple as that.

    You're more or less correct. I'll fix that. Thanks.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  16. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:14:32 -0000, "Andrew B" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I not sure why some people have such feelings towards speed cameras. In my experience its the same
    >people who react the same way to parking tickets.

    >It's VERY simple, so simple, my 2 year old niece could understand.

    >YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED

    >If you want to avoid the fine SLOW DOWN. I have lost a great number of friends in RTA's both as
    >pedestrians, cyclists & drivers. Some of these may have been avoidable !

    >All the arguments about cameras being used to raise funds is irrelevant, it is the same as having a
    >police officer standing there without the associated costs. It allows the police to place resources
    >elsewhere.

    >If you stay within the law, you won't get a ticket. I feel that all speed cameras should be set to
    >a maximum of 5 mph above the speed limit, if this means more people get caught, so be it.

    Very good. Now read

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html

    And tell me what's caused (or might have caused) the deadly change in trend.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  17. Tim Dunne

    Tim Dunne Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > No. What do you think might alter road safety?

    Less arrogant, ill educated drivers, which would naturally lead to less speeding idiots, pleasantly
    leading to a decrease in apologists for such idiots. Get the picture?

    Sorry, Paul, I can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

    Tim
    --
    Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
    chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
    Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
     
  18. Tim Dunne

    Tim Dunne Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > No. What do you think might alter road safety?

    Less arrogant, ill educated drivers, which would naturally lead to less speeding idiots, pleasantly
    leading to a decrease in apologists for such idiots. Get the picture?

    Sorry, Paul, I can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

    Tim
    --
    Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
    chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
    Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
     
  19. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:44:28 GMT, "Tim Dunne" <[email protected]> wrote:

    [Government policy might affect road safety]

    >> No. What do you think might alter road safety?

    >Less arrogant, ill educated drivers, which would naturally lead to less speeding idiots, pleasantly
    >leading to a decrease in apologists for such idiots. Get the picture?

    >Sorry, Paul, I can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

    Prat.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  20. Tim Dunne

    Tim Dunne Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Prat.

    Nice to see I found your level. To be called a prat by you is such a reassertion of my sanity.

    Tim
    --
    Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
    chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
    Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...