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
>>> 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
