OT: Sp**d C*m*r*s

  • Thread starter Colin Blackburn
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:42:48 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> There are studies available from countries around the world, many of which have been
>>> peer-reviewed

>>Depends on the subject. The relevant subject is "will speed cameras make the roads safer?", and
>>that's one question which isn't answered in the worthwhile research.

>Again, it depends on our definition of worthwhile. Reduced speeding results in greater safety.
>Evidence shows that cameras can reduce speeding. Other effects may exist, but it is noticeable that
>the only roads in the UK where safety records are not continuing to improve are those where Gatsos
>are least common.

Where on earth do you think you got that from?

>>If you had a reference, I'd be pleased to tell you exactly why it's rubbish.

>Sadly I would require credible reasons, so perhaps another time.

Translation: You don't have any evidence either.

>>I can drive a fleet of buses through the likes of TRL421. It's arrant nonsense.

>So you say. Strangely, however, people who are actually paid money to study road safety (such as
>the poeple at Reading university) seem to find it quite acceptable.

Except that even the Chief exec of the TRL can't explain how the headline conclusions can be
justified. And if folk at Reading haven't noticed, blame them, not me.

>>Sadly in the case of some recent so called research in the UK it is produced to a contract which
>>says "prepare a report to support xyz". That's not science.

>The science is out there, and the message of the science is that speed kills. You can dress it up
>any way you like, the results al come out the same: on a given stretch of road, driving within the
>speed limit, you are less likely to kill or be killed than if you drive significantly above the
>speed limit - far enough above, for example, to trigger a camera.

There's no such evidence. Literally. And no research into the negative effects of speed
cameras either.

>But I said I wasn't going to get into a discussion about your personal camera monomania, so I shall
>leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word, and of course the chief constable remains under
>no obligation to give you any justification whatsoever.

No obligation to me personally, no. Let's see what he thinks about the letter from my MP.

>Do let us know how your lawsuit goes. It should be amusing.

If the opportunity arises, I'll be sure to let you know.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:02:58 +0100, Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Thing is Guy, these's no independent research. All the research you can read is either a)
>> hopelessly flawed, b) designed to support a pre-defined conclusion or c) both. What little
>> independent work there is all agrees with me. (And don't go putting claims I haven't made in my
>> mouth.)
>
>Hmmm, then it all disagrees with your tosspotted views, then, except the little bit of work
>that does?

False.

>That ought to tell you something, primarilly that you're a tosspot.

>Tosspot,

I do so love a reasoned argument with the intelligentsia of uk.rec.cycling.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
D

David Gillbe

Guest
> How come our roads were the safest in the world long before we had automated speed enforcement?
> --
Paul, We've been through this already. That statement is no basis for an argument. To show this, I
have decided to blame the reduction in British road safety on some other things in the world:

1) The introduction of airbags in cars. (perhaps possible - see the helmet arguments)
2) The compulsory use of passenger seatbelts. (ditto)
3) The worrying rise of drive-thru McDonalds stores. (personal pet hate #1)
4) The decline in quality pop music (pet hate #2)
5) The rise of the Euro and all things Europe (pet hate #3) (slap me on the wrist and call me a
raving right-wing loon)
6) The blurring (although I think it's gone beyond "blurred" now of political boundaries
(pet hate #4)
7) The fact that I'm not 6'3" and 95kg of muscle (current pet hate #5) (and will therefore never be
the next Matt Pinsent (any comments about my rowing technique not appreciated))
8) The fact that I'm slower than I used to be on a bike (permanent pet hate
#6)
9) The worrying increase in the use of bullet pointed or numbered lists in use in Usenet groups.
(pet hate #7) (ooops)

I could blame the decrease in road safety on any single one of these things, and probably construct
a risible argument as to why these things should all be banned because "they cost lives". I won't,
because I don't wish to make a fool of myself. This however, is getting away from the point. Seeing
that fact A and Fact B occurred at the same time, and therefore saying that fact A caused fact B (or
vice versa) is completely ridiculous. Please. Find a better argument before you give me a hernia
from fits of hysteria.
 
D

David Gillbe

Guest
"The polar bears don't like speed cameras either"

Very sorry to reply to my own post. Just thought I'd point out that I have no evidence for that
statement. Sounds like several other things I've heard recently........
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 00:11:42 +0100, "David Gillbe" <david.NO^&[email protected]> wrote:

>> How come our roads were the safest in the world long before we had automated speed enforcement?

>We've been through this already. That statement is no basis for an argument. To show this, I have
>decided to blame the reduction in British road safety on some other things in the world:
>
>1) The introduction of airbags in cars. (perhaps possible - see the helmet arguments)
>2) The compulsory use of passenger seatbelts. (ditto)
>3) The worrying rise of drive-thru McDonalds stores. (personal pet hate #1)
>4) The decline in quality pop music (pet hate #2)
>5) The rise of the Euro and all things Europe (pet hate #3) (slap me on the wrist and call me a
> raving right-wing loon)
>6) The blurring (although I think it's gone beyond "blurred" now of political boundaries (pet
> hate #4)
>7) The fact that I'm not 6'3" and 95kg of muscle (current pet hate #5) (and will therefore never be
> the next Matt Pinsent (any comments about my rowing technique not appreciated))
>8) The fact that I'm slower than I used to be on a bike (permanent pet hate
>#6)
>9) The worrying increase in the use of bullet pointed or numbered lists in use in Usenet groups.
> (pet hate #7) (ooops)
>
>I could blame the decrease in road safety on any single one of these things, and probably construct
>a risible argument as to why these things should all be banned because "they cost lives". I won't,
>because I don't wish to make a fool of myself. This however, is getting away from the point. Seeing
>that fact A and Fact B occurred at the same time, and therefore saying that fact A caused fact B
>(or vice versa) is completely ridiculous. Please. Find a better argument before you give me a
>hernia from fits of hysteria.

Brilliant. Now try answering the question, not some imagined different question.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
D

David Gillbe

Guest
> Brilliant. Now try answering the question, not some imagined different question.

Paul, Even someone who thinks that speed cameras cost lives and that speeding is safe can see that
I made no attempt to answer your question. I simply ridiculed your argument, rendering the
question invalid. Come back when you have an argument worth arguing, some evidence worth reading,
and some questions worth answering. Until that, go back to uk.tosspot and let the rest of us enjoy
our cycling.
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:02:58 +0100, Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Thing is Guy, these's no independent research. All the research you can read is either a)
>>> hopelessly flawed, b) designed to support a pre-defined conclusion or c) both. What little
>>> independent work there is all agrees with me. (And don't go putting claims I haven't made in my
>>> mouth.)
>>
>>Hmmm, then it all disagrees with your tosspotted views, then, except the little bit of work
>>that does?
>
> False.
>
>>That ought to tell you something, primarilly that you're a tosspot.
>
>>Tosspot,
>
> I do so love a reasoned argument with the intelligentsia of uk.rec.cycling.

Aye, well one day you might be up to it, then.

Tosspot.

--
Trev
 
T

Tony W

Guest
"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > 'Church of the Mobile Death Greenhouse' ... I like it :)
> >
> >
> > And Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith is the High Priest :)
>
> I wouldn't elevate him to that status. He merely published the parish newsletter.

Surely Jeremy Clarkson should be the high priest.

T
 
Status
Not open for further replies.