Zealots

Alan Holmes said:

This afternoon I passed a white van on the centre lane of a motorway, where
the left hand lane was completely empty, he was concentrating on using a
mobile phone, how will an increase in speed cameras solve that problem?

That would be 'something that counts, yet can't be counted'.

Al C-F said:

John B said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling through Hook (nr Basingstoke) this morning I noticed a mobile speed
camera van parked ahead. The next thing i heard was the rapid screeching of
brakes behind me as motorists also saw it and slammed on the anchors.

Was that by the railway bridge, on the road that goes round the business
park (Bartley Way)? It always used to be a popular spot for the
cameras, and it appeared quite lucrative.

No, although I rode along there too.
It was between the Griffin Way roundabout on the A30 and the centre of Hook,
alongside (I think) a park.

I thought about trying to set the camera off, but looked down and saw I was on
the Brommie so decided against it ;-)

John B

Alan Holmes twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

This afternoon I passed a white van on the centre lane of a motorway, where
the left hand lane was completely empty, he was concentrating on using a
mobile phone, how will an increase in speed cameras solve that problem?

Equally, how would a decrease in speed cameras solve that problem?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"mb" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

How do you (and others) think that cameras could be hidden? How do you
propose that "hidden" cameras stay hidden, even from locals? What do you
think the effects would be of only locals knowing the whereabouts of
cameras and other not?

Mini cameras in all lamposts.

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

bugbear said:

Quoted message said:

*All* cameras should be hidden.

Abso-freakin'-lutely.

That way they'd /all/ be ignored (as in have no effect on traffic
speed) - the reason they are conspicuous is so that they actually
influence driving speeds.

9 points would have far more influence on peoples' habits.

I will add my opinion that cameras should enforce 30/40 limits only. I
don't think
they are a proper solution for trunk roads.

"DavidR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

9 points would have far more influence on peoples' habits.

Spoke to a relly this christmas who has 9 points. (fortunately not a blood
relative, otherwise I'd be really embarrassed). The thing he's 'learned'
from his points is to take the motorway rather than the sensible route,
because if he tries 'keeping up with the traffic' he'll get caught again.
[censored] hasn't learned to control his own driving, instead only taking cues
from the car in front. Unfortunately he's too old to really learn anything
new.

cheers,
clive

Doki said:

The fact is that the
people bumbling along at 35 in an NSL are generally either on the
phone or have the reactions and eyesight of a dead pony.

perhaps they just aren't in a tearing hurry.

I regularly drive down a bit of 50 mph road at around 35 because its a
residential street and if I lived there I would like not the noise of
everyone going at 50.

I doesn't matter if you drive slower than you can.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article <[email hidden]>, Alan Holmes
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Go and look at the figures on road deaths and their causes (here's a
hint -
12% of road deaths have exceeding the speed limit as a cause), go and
look
at the numbers of road deaths VS murders and manslaughters, and go and
look
at the numbers of Police forces who've cut their traffic divisions down
to
the bare minimum so that they can just about fulfil their statutory
obligations to patrol the motorways since speed cameras have been
introduced.

Then consider the possibility that the reduction in traffic policing may
not have been brought about by the increased deployment of speed
cameras.

This afternoon I passed a white van on the centre lane of a motorway, where
the left hand lane was completely empty, he was concentrating on using a
mobile phone, how will an increase in speed cameras solve that problem?

Do you prefer apple or custard in your doughnuts?

In article <[email hidden]>, AndyMorris
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Doki said:

The fact is that the
people bumbling along at 35 in an NSL are generally either on the
phone or have the reactions and eyesight of a dead pony.

perhaps they just aren't in a tearing hurry.

I regularly drive down a bit of 50 mph road at around 35 because its a
residential street and if I lived there I would like not the noise of
everyone going at 50.

I doesn't matter if you drive slower than you can.

Doesn't it mean you're not a skilled driver, your car is [censored] or you
have a testosterone deficit?

On 01/04/2007 22:15:10 mb said:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:10:31 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 01/03/2007 22:35:08 "Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I cycle, drive and walk, and I don't like speed cameras. I must be
> some sort of walking paradox 😉.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not really, no shortage of people like that, because many/most people in
the UK seem to work happily with the paradox that speeding isn't a
problem and it's okay to do it (unless you get caught, which is a
nuisance but nothing more). I used to be like that, a change in driving
attitudes and speed cameras no longer bother me, because since I keep
inside limits they're irrelevant to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually you are part of the majority, this place occupies many of the
noisy but impetent minority.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess any group of "impetent" people will be a minority, since
"impetent" is not a word. If you want to make pithy criticisms of the
locals to show how superior you are then turning on your spell checker
would probably help...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pete.

Quoted message said:

Good grief, a spelling flame. How quaint. "Life's too short to proof-read
usenet".

Maybe he feels both impatent and impotent.

Nach.
--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Rob Morley wrote on 05/01/2007 05:17 +0100:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, AndyMorris
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I doesn't matter if you drive slower than you can.

Doesn't it mean you're not a skilled driver, your car is [censored] or you
have a testosterone deficit?

No, but a big sign lights up on your car roof saying "Has small penis"

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

On 01/04/2007 23:53:47 'DavidR said:

"mb" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you (and others) think that cameras could be hidden? How do you
propose that "hidden" cameras stay hidden, even from locals? What do you
think the effects would be of only locals knowing the whereabouts of
cameras and other not?

Quoted message said:

Mini cameras in all lamposts.

How about fitting everyone in the U.K. with a tracking chip, just under
the skin, say behind the ear?

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

In news:[email hidden],
DavidR <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

9 points would have far more influence on peoples' habits.

Indeed. In this[1] month's issue of (whispers) "CAR" magazine, media [censored]
Piers Morgan bemoans the fact that he can't "enjoy" his shiny new
Mercedes-Benz CLS on account of having nine points. Anything which stops
Piers Morgan from having fun is definitely a Good Thing.

1 - it's probably dated March 2007, but it arrived on the doormat yesterday

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Never tie your shoelaces in a revolving door.

In news:[email hidden],
Alan Holmes <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

The only ones I would not challenge are the hand held radar devices,
as they are calibrated at the start and end of every use.

Really?

<URL:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/81mph_school_bus/>

In other news, a Newport taxi driver has recently smashed Al Teague's LSR
for a wheel-driven car, with a 420 mph pass in a 12 year old Vauxhall
Cavalier.

<URL:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/04/420mph_cavalier/>

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The sixth student said, "I ride my bicycle because I want people
to look up to me and say 'Wow! He looks really good up there!'
The teacher replied: 'Go away, Fabrizio!'"

In news:[email hidden],
Alan Holmes <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

I would like to see more warning devices, which tell you to go slower,
rather than speed cameras which do not promote safety.

I think almost every motor vehicle on the road has one of those already.
People who don't pay heed to their speedometers are unlikely to pay any more
attention to a flashing light telling them they've been naughty.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
It is not possible to call a complex number from a phone box.

Jeff York said:

spindrift said:

Jeff York said:

Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:

>spindrift wrote on 04/01/2007 11:53 +0100:
>>
>> The study's authors, Dr Damian Poulter and Professor Frank McKenna
>> from the University of Reading's Psychology department, replicated
>> the findings in a second survey, which also found that 85% of
>> respondents felt travelling immediately above the speed limit on
>> residential roads was unacceptable behaviour.
>>
>
>The problem is we have schizophrenic nimbyism so while 85% felt it
>unacceptable, according to the RAC:
>
>"More than half of British drivers break speed limits every day, a
>survey by motoring organisation the RAC suggests.
>
>Of the 1,074 questioned, 55% admitted regularly speeding, compared with
>45% in last year's RAC Report on Motoring.
>
>The RAC says 30mph limits are the most likely to be ignored, and drivers
>continue speeding because they do not believe they will be caught."
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4241215.stm
>
>Which implies most people think it unacceptable for "you to speed on my
>street" but perfectly acceptable for "me to speed on your street"

And whenever there is a speed camera installed after "pressure" from
residents or villagers, the ones who always get caught are those
selfsame residents or villagers!

Source please.

Read *any* local paper. Or talk to a member of any of the CSPs.

I have. There is nothing to justify your assertion. What was that about
making stuff up again?

"That is *not* TRL421"

I didn't say it was, numpty. You can find the report online if you
like, but really, digging out your holy grail 5% figure and crowing
that this "proves" that speeding is safe is taking self-delusion to
another level. Speeding makes crashes more likely and increases the
severity of injuries. If you dispute this we can test it if you like,
I'll drive into you at 30 mph and then 50 mph and you can indicate by
blowing bloody froth from your mouth which hurt more.

What percentage of fatal accidents had speed as a factor, from the
latest DFT report, mmm?

Wouldn't be 26% would it?

The Association of Chief Police Officers says that speed is the most
important factor in road crashes, more so than even drink or drug
driving.

Marie Taylor, Group Manager of research into speed and accidents at
TRL, said of their numerous studies over the past decade into the
relationship between speed and crashes that: "The results from each
of the studies show unambiguously that higher speeds are associated
with more accidents." The research at TRL has found that "excessive
speed was recorded as a factor in more than a third of fatal
accidents" and that "the true effect of speed is likely to be even
greater than this".

And the ABD?

Here's their reasoning:

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html

They've fitted a line through the number of road casualties in 1993,
the year before the first cameras were introduced, and claim that this
represents a `trend' in the data. Specifically their claim is that the
number of fatalities in a given year should be falling by 166 each
year. Then, for years after 1993 and only for those years they've
plotted the difference between their `trend' line, and the actual
numbers of deaths. A leap through the correlation-implies-causation
window allows us to plummet to the conclusion that speed cameras
`caused' these deaths.

This is, and not to put too fine a point on it, total bollocks.

Worlwide studies:

Oz

In Australia, excessive speed is an important factor in approximately
20 per cent of fatal crashes (Haworth and Rechnitzer, 1993) and speed
is a probable or possible cause in 25 per cent of rural crashes (Armour
and Cinquegrana, 1990). It has been argued that such figures are likely
to under-estimate the role of speed in crashes because subtle effects,
such as the amplification of other dangers in the traffic situation by
relatively small increases in speed, are likely to be overlooked
(Plowden and Hillman, 1984).

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/intro.html

US and A:

Speed is a factor in nearly one-third of all fatal crashes.
Speed-related crashes cost society more than $23 billion a year.*

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/speed.htm

The EU:

The fact is that in Europe, according to the Commission of the European
Communities Road Safety Action Programme, published in June 2003,
excessive and improper speed is the cause of about a third (33%) of
fatal and serious accidents and a major factor in determining the
severity of injuries.

South Africa:

In 2004 fatal crashes in which speed played a role increased to 32,94%
of a total of 10,523 fatal crashes. The estimated number of fatalities
resulting from speed-related fatal crashes increased by 1,326 (46,41%)
from 2,857 in 2003 to 4,183 in 2004.

And how about the University of Reading report above that shows that
speeding drivers is the most serious quality of life issue for
respondents?

Are they all wrong?

Brainwashed?

You minimise the risks of speed yet the evidence is that many people
are appalled at the noise, pollution and danger posed by speedophiles.

Why would you defend such behaviour or try to mitigate its effect?

spindrift said:

[Jeff York wrote:]

Quoted message said:

"That is *not* TRL421"

Quoted message said:

I didn't say it was, numpty.

You implied it in your post.

Quoted message said:

You can find the report online if you
like, but really, digging out your holy grail 5% figure and crowing
that this "proves" that speeding is safe is taking self-delusion to
another level.

5% is the number of injury collisions in 2005 for which speeding was
recorded as a contributory factor - that is a fact.

Quoted message said:

Speeding makes crashes more likely

Yes, and too fast for the conditions (but within the speed limit) even
more so - but you have already shown you don't know, and are unwilling
to try to understand the difference between the two, so discussion
becomes extremely difficult.

Quoted message said:

What percentage of fatal accidents had speed as a factor, from the
latest DFT report, mmm?

Wouldn't be 26% would it?

Yes as A factor, and I note the subtle use of the word 'speed' not
'speeding'. 'Speeding' itself appeared as a factor in 12% of all fatal
accidents, and going too fast for conditions in 17%, as we have told you
over and over since the data was published, and whilst you kept
regurgitating the discredited 'one third' figure.

Now, given you have finally cottoned-on to the fact that that 12% of
fatal collisions, and 5% of all injury collisions have speeding as a
factor, and 17% of fatal and 12% of all injury collisions have going too
fast for the conditions as a factor - which do you think should be
targeted first?

Or better still, why not concentrate the majority of our efforts on on
the factor which appeared in 64% of fatal and 67% of all injury
collisions - driver/rider error?

--
Matt B

Pinky said:

<[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Instead of trying to regulate for safety
we would, perhaps, be better educating people how to act like grownups
and understand the consequences of their behavior.
It's impossible to prevent the irresponsible from injuring the
innocent but may be possible to reduce the number of irresponsible
individuals.

Sensible risk management would make for a richer society.

How?

Include road safety, risk management and social responsibility in
school curricula (starting early), maybe some public service
advertising, too. Aim to engender, through this and legislative
changes, a culture of responsible behavior, instead of nannying and
litigating.

Quoted message said:

You are talking about "pie in the sky!"

Sadly, you're probably right.

Quoted message said:

History proves your proposal to be a none starter.

Not so sure about this. These things seem to go in cycles and mass
education is a relatively recent phenomenon. It also seems to me that
risks are unprecedentedly low at the moment (in developed societies),
and we arn't well equipped to deal with that situation.
Look at the money spent on rail safety recently- Can that be a
sensible allocation of resources?
It might be worth a try.

Quoted message said:

Human beings are basically selfish -- survival of the "persona" is paramount
with us all ---- and after all "history" is written by those who survive!

...and ever more of us are surviving. Yet many still feel they live in
a dangerous world, and our ability to make rational choices about the
risks that do exist is very poor.
Examples are all around us- The MMR vaccine, rail safety initiatives,
people choosing to drive after rail accidents, attitudes to speeding,
the 1995 contraceptive health scare, GM and irradiated foods, fear of
flying...

Cheers,
W.

spindrift said:

"That is *not* TRL421"

I didn't say it was, numpty. You can find the report online if you
like, but really, digging out your holy grail 5% figure and crowing
that this "proves" that speeding is safe is taking self-delusion to
another level. Speeding makes crashes more likely and increases the
severity of injuries. If you dispute this we can test it if you like,
I'll drive into you at 30 mph and then 50 mph and you can indicate by
blowing bloody froth from your mouth which hurt more.

What percentage of fatal accidents had speed as a factor, from the
latest DFT report, mmm?

Wouldn't be 26% would it?

The Association of Chief Police Officers says that speed is the most
important factor in road crashes, more so than even drink or drug
driving.

Marie Taylor, Group Manager of research into speed and accidents at
TRL, said of their numerous studies over the past decade into the
relationship between speed and crashes that: "The results from each
of the studies show unambiguously that higher speeds are associated
with more accidents." The research at TRL has found that "excessive
speed was recorded as a factor in more than a third of fatal
accidents" and that "the true effect of speed is likely to be even
greater than this".

And the ABD?

Here's their reasoning:

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html

They've fitted a line through the number of road casualties in 1993,
the year before the first cameras were introduced, and claim that this
represents a `trend' in the data. Specifically their claim is that the
number of fatalities in a given year should be falling by 166 each
year. Then, for years after 1993 and only for those years they've
plotted the difference between their `trend' line, and the actual
numbers of deaths. A leap through the correlation-implies-causation
window allows us to plummet to the conclusion that speed cameras
`caused' these deaths.

This is, and not to put too fine a point on it, total bollocks.

Worlwide studies:

Oz

In Australia, excessive speed is an important factor in approximately
20 per cent of fatal crashes (Haworth and Rechnitzer, 1993) and speed
is a probable or possible cause in 25 per cent of rural crashes (Armour
and Cinquegrana, 1990). It has been argued that such figures are likely
to under-estimate the role of speed in crashes because subtle effects,
such as the amplification of other dangers in the traffic situation by
relatively small increases in speed, are likely to be overlooked
(Plowden and Hillman, 1984).

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/intro.html

US and A:

Speed is a factor in nearly one-third of all fatal crashes.
Speed-related crashes cost society more than $23 billion a year.*

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/speed.htm

The EU:

The fact is that in Europe, according to the Commission of the European
Communities Road Safety Action Programme, published in June 2003,
excessive and improper speed is the cause of about a third (33%) of
fatal and serious accidents and a major factor in determining the
severity of injuries.

South Africa:

In 2004 fatal crashes in which speed played a role increased to 32,94%
of a total of 10,523 fatal crashes. The estimated number of fatalities
resulting from speed-related fatal crashes increased by 1,326 (46,41%)
from 2,857 in 2003 to 4,183 in 2004.

And how about the University of Reading report above that shows that
speeding drivers is the most serious quality of life issue for
respondents?

Are they all wrong?

Brainwashed?

You minimise the risks of speed yet the evidence is that many people
are appalled at the noise, pollution and danger posed by speedophiles.

Why would you defend such behaviour or try to mitigate its effect?

Or, name the newspaper Jeff. You made the claim, back it up.

Or consider why whenever a road safety stats document is issued any
tiny part of the report that appears to minimise the risks of speeding
is seized upon.

Why do you ignore the wealth of evidence above?

Are all the studies that conclude speed as a factor in a third of all
RTA's wrong and your single, solitary report right?

Rather selective old boy, no?

The speedophile's case is that speeding is safe and drivers should be
able to pick a speed they feel appropriate. Any cyclist could tell you
that drivers are not the best people to assess the risks posed by their
speeding, as the reading report makes clear>

So why ignore the Reading findings?

Do you dispute them?

The antispeed camera campaign is hilarious.they claim safety cameras
are dangerous because of the research that shows checking the speedo is
distracting.

And the source of the research?

Paul Smith asked his mates:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11613&start=220

Breathtaking, like asking a bunch of street drinkers if super strength
cider should be cheaper!

LOL!!

I have wagon loads of studies from all over the world that show the
link between speeding and the increased risk of accidents.

You have a barking mad lobby group and a single line in a DFT report.

I know who I believe.

45% of motorists consider speed as the main cause of collisions.

* 54% of Londoners admit to speeding on main urban roads - the
highest of any region (38% nationally)

* 78% of drivers consider speed cameras a good way of deterring
people from speeding.

* 76% of motorists support having more cameras at traffic lights to
catch 'red light jumpers'.

* A large majority of motorists (84%) in London and the southern
region view the use of speed cameras as a good thing, even though more
than half have been 'flashed', or flashed and fined, by one.

* 85% of motorists believe that speed cameras existence saves lives

Detailed research by Gloucestershire County Council shows the
relationship between speed and crashes.[16] In its survey, the
reporting officer at a crash was required to indicate what went wrong
(the 'precipitating factor'😉 when there was an injury accident. In 97%
of cases human error was to blame; in the others it was directly
attributable to mechanical failure. When asked to identify other
factors which had caused or contributed to the crash, officers
attributed excess speed as a causation factor in 14% of crashes and
inappropriate speed (such as loss of control) in a further 32%.

14. The overwhelming majority of the memoranda we received agreed with
these findings. Two, however, fundamentally disagreed. The RAC
Foundation for Motoring and the Environment and the Association of
British Drivers doubted whether speed made a significant contribution
to crashes. The RAC Foundation pointed to a study by the West Midlands
Police which found that less than 2% of traffic accidents were caused
by excessive speed for the conditions.[22] The Association of British
Drivers argued that "the only truly new research into accident causes
is TRL323 and that "the worst abuses of statistics only claim that
speed causes one third of accidents, with the true figure likely to be
around 10 per cent.".[23] Part of the problem arises from a confusion
of terms.

The RAC Foundation and the Association of British Drivers claim that
other organisations, including the DTLR, ACPO and the TRL, state that
speed is a cause of 30% of road accidents; however, they do not argue
this, but that speed is a contributory factor in about 30% of
accidents. TRL Report 323, A new system for recording contributory
factors in road accidents, which was published in 1998, set out the
viability of requiring police officers to record contributory factors
when visiting road accidents in addition to the data already collected.
It noted that excessive speed was a definite factor in 6% of crashes.
However, it should not be taken as evidence that speed is not a
contributory factor. Sustrans stated:

"Although the much-quoted TRL Report 323 puts excessive speed as a
definite factor in only six per cent of occasions a full list of
instances given suggests that speed greatly contributes to the number
and severity of almost all accidents and certainly more than the one
third often asserted".[24]

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/55705.htm

Old, old arguments, refuted many many times.