Figures etc at SafeSpeed



Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
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
 
P

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
 
R

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
 
P

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
 
T

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
 
A

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
 
S

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
 
S

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 ;)
 
M

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
 
J

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.
 
W

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.
 
N

Nathaniel Porte

Guest
"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
 
P

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
 
P

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
 
T

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
 
T

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
 
P

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
 
T

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.