To Spindrift - prove it
Discussion
spindrift said:
Safespeed is a crank website set up by pro-speeder Paul Smith, an old delivery man with no road safety experience.
Wasn't Einstein a janitor? I don't think he'd been through a black hole, either.
Edited to say - My mistake. He was a patent clerk.
>> Edited by rsvmilly on Thursday 5th May 10:24
spindrift said:
The DfT's experimental group consisted of eight police force areas
where camera partnership schemes were introduced.
Yes, the 3 year study that was deemed a success after just one year!
Now I'm not a scientist but I would have at least let the study run for 3 years before rolling it out across the country.
Maybe they wanted it to be a success?Spindrift
If camera are so wonderful expalain these:
B4051 Park Row/ Perry Road from 12.3 to 20
A420 Lawrence Hill from 1 to 6
B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane, Nr. Hatchet Rd from 0.3 to 5
A4018 Passage Rd. Nr. B4057 Crow Lane from 0.7 to 4
These are from figures published by the SCP and are KSI's per annum for 2002/3
If camera are so wonderful expalain these:
B4051 Park Row/ Perry Road from 12.3 to 20
A420 Lawrence Hill from 1 to 6
B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane, Nr. Hatchet Rd from 0.3 to 5
A4018 Passage Rd. Nr. B4057 Crow Lane from 0.7 to 4
These are from figures published by the SCP and are KSI's per annum for 2002/3
Paul Smith's research/comments on road safety are a lot more relevant than what the Speed Camera lot say. He has support from a lot of very experienced drivers, police and road users.
I ask you, Spindrift. Do you drive? How experienced a driver are you? How far do you drive in a year (more or less than 30K a year?) and how over how many years? Also do you have a clean license and how's your accident history?
This is not a trick question, just curious
For the record I have covered 1.25 Million miles in the last 14 years. During this time I have acquired a maximum no-claims bonus on my insurance, and have carried a clean license for the bulk of this time (apart from a couple of speeding convictions in '98).
I ask you, Spindrift. Do you drive? How experienced a driver are you? How far do you drive in a year (more or less than 30K a year?) and how over how many years? Also do you have a clean license and how's your accident history?
This is not a trick question, just curious
For the record I have covered 1.25 Million miles in the last 14 years. During this time I have acquired a maximum no-claims bonus on my insurance, and have carried a clean license for the bulk of this time (apart from a couple of speeding convictions in '98).
(long post, sorry)
It's not cameras I object to per se it's the stupid lies that are perpetuated as a means of justifying them, coupled with the amazingly short-sighted and completely incorrect view shared by many of the more vocal proponents of the box-on-a-stick method of law enforcement that cameras are a road-safety panacea and will, as a concept, suffice as the only measure required to ensure our safety on the roads when it should be obvious to even those with only a modicum of common sense that they have not, do not, and will not ever perform this function adequately.
Cameras by themselves DO NOT save lives. From the late 1960s to 1993 the trend of road deaths in the UK was down. Since 1993 the trend is up (Government figures, not SafeSpeed or ABD). Why is 1993 significant? That's the year speed cameras were introduced. The implication is clear and irrefutable.
Motorways, which have the highest average speed per mile, also have the lowest average KSI rate per mile. Ergo, speed alone does not kill; more often than not it's stupidity coupled with inappropriate speed - and inappropriate may or may not mean in excess of the limit depending on the conditions - that kills.
Why are speed cameras ineffective? Because:
1. They do not prevent dangerous driving - it's perfectly possible to drive like a complete to$$er at 69mph on a motorway or 29mph in a built up area without being picked up by a camera
2. They do not address the issue of driving while uninsured
3. They do not address the issue of driving while unlicensed
4. They do not address the issue of driving while unfit through drink or drugs
5. They do not address the issue of exceeding the speed limit whilst driving a stolen car
6. There are several technical issues surrounding their accuracy - e.g. the radar in use on Gatsos can register a curtain-sided lorry as travelling at over 100mph due to the doppler issues of the curtainsides vibrating
7. They do not address the issue of poorly-engineered roads and junctions
et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
What is required is a complete review of all the speed limits across the country. Some need to be increased, while some need to be reduced.
In addition, driver education must be improved, road safety should be introduced into the National Curriculum (and I don't mean road safety taught by Brake, I mean road safety taught by experienced traffic police officers who know what they're talking about) and a national programme of improvements to poorly-engineered roads should be undertaken.
It's not cameras I object to per se it's the stupid lies that are perpetuated as a means of justifying them, coupled with the amazingly short-sighted and completely incorrect view shared by many of the more vocal proponents of the box-on-a-stick method of law enforcement that cameras are a road-safety panacea and will, as a concept, suffice as the only measure required to ensure our safety on the roads when it should be obvious to even those with only a modicum of common sense that they have not, do not, and will not ever perform this function adequately.
Cameras by themselves DO NOT save lives. From the late 1960s to 1993 the trend of road deaths in the UK was down. Since 1993 the trend is up (Government figures, not SafeSpeed or ABD). Why is 1993 significant? That's the year speed cameras were introduced. The implication is clear and irrefutable.
Motorways, which have the highest average speed per mile, also have the lowest average KSI rate per mile. Ergo, speed alone does not kill; more often than not it's stupidity coupled with inappropriate speed - and inappropriate may or may not mean in excess of the limit depending on the conditions - that kills.
Why are speed cameras ineffective? Because:
1. They do not prevent dangerous driving - it's perfectly possible to drive like a complete to$$er at 69mph on a motorway or 29mph in a built up area without being picked up by a camera
2. They do not address the issue of driving while uninsured
3. They do not address the issue of driving while unlicensed
4. They do not address the issue of driving while unfit through drink or drugs
5. They do not address the issue of exceeding the speed limit whilst driving a stolen car
6. There are several technical issues surrounding their accuracy - e.g. the radar in use on Gatsos can register a curtain-sided lorry as travelling at over 100mph due to the doppler issues of the curtainsides vibrating
7. They do not address the issue of poorly-engineered roads and junctions
et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
What is required is a complete review of all the speed limits across the country. Some need to be increased, while some need to be reduced.
In addition, driver education must be improved, road safety should be introduced into the National Curriculum (and I don't mean road safety taught by Brake, I mean road safety taught by experienced traffic police officers who know what they're talking about) and a national programme of improvements to poorly-engineered roads should be undertaken.
spindrift said:
Paul Smith's research/comments on road safety are a lot more relevant than what the Speed Camera lot say. He has support from a lot of very experienced drivers, police and road users.
I ask you, Spindrift. Do you drive? How experienced a driver are you? How far do you drive in a year (more or less than 30K a year?) and how over how many years? Also do you have a clean license and how's your accident history?
This is not a trick question, just curious
For the record I have covered 1.25 Million miles in the last 14 years. During this time I have acquired a maximum no-claims bonus on my insurance, and have carried a clean license for the bulk of this time (apart from a couple of speeding convictions in '98).
Yes I drive, a fiesta if you must know. I am also a pedestrian and cyclist.
My mind is made up - troll!
spindrift said:
LOL!!!
Taking just 1 safety camera as an example. The one on Grapes Hill in Norwich which caused massive protests from the drivers whose time is too precious to waste by OBEYING THE LAW. Before the camera was installed there were over 3000 a day breaking the 30MPH limit, after the camera this went down to below 300. Since the safety camera was installed there has been a huge reduction in KSIs on that road. Proof positive for all.
sample size n=1
that's an anecdote not evidence
There's been recent correspondence in British Medical Journal about this and there is no evidence of a causal link between accident rate and speed camera use despite the best efforts of statistical manipulation by the scamera partnerships
I know you wanted to keep this on topic... but i just wanted to add an in-between point of view..
I am a petrol-head, but i 'mostly' stick to the speed limit. (I'm sorry, but doing 70mph on the motorway in a Lexus is very difficult, and the speed will creep up easily, and unnoticably)
But around towns and residential estates, I stick to the 30 limit..
I have nothing against speed cameras... i have seen a couple i completley agree with, these were outside schools in 30 zones with a busy road.
However, how do you justify speed cameras on motorways?
I mean, you can say 'speed kills', well, of course speed is a factor in all accidents, because if we were all stationary, then they wouldn't happen.
The fact is, a speed camera can only catch someone who is driving over the speed limit - you can be driving a lethal cut and shut, with no tax, mot or insurance, after 10 pints and out of your head on cocaine... and as long as you dont break the speed limit, they wont catch you, regardless of how many children you mow down..
IMHO, claiming 'agressive males who drive too fast are the biggest danger' is horseshit. I have seen an elderly woman mow down someone by driving through a red-light pelican crossing at 15mph... because she wasnt aware of her surroundings...
the problem is bad driving, of which, almost all of us are guilty of at some point, and cameras are as much use as a chocolate fireguard to detect...
I am a petrol-head, but i 'mostly' stick to the speed limit. (I'm sorry, but doing 70mph on the motorway in a Lexus is very difficult, and the speed will creep up easily, and unnoticably)
But around towns and residential estates, I stick to the 30 limit..
I have nothing against speed cameras... i have seen a couple i completley agree with, these were outside schools in 30 zones with a busy road.
However, how do you justify speed cameras on motorways?
I mean, you can say 'speed kills', well, of course speed is a factor in all accidents, because if we were all stationary, then they wouldn't happen.
The fact is, a speed camera can only catch someone who is driving over the speed limit - you can be driving a lethal cut and shut, with no tax, mot or insurance, after 10 pints and out of your head on cocaine... and as long as you dont break the speed limit, they wont catch you, regardless of how many children you mow down..
IMHO, claiming 'agressive males who drive too fast are the biggest danger' is horseshit. I have seen an elderly woman mow down someone by driving through a red-light pelican crossing at 15mph... because she wasnt aware of her surroundings...
the problem is bad driving, of which, almost all of us are guilty of at some point, and cameras are as much use as a chocolate fireguard to detect...
Und I know you and Fumble Fingers are one und same from that one post on Paulie's site when you complained on there about something she said - long after she departed that forum as NTC (und is still there - but posts in the usual places as she has done since forum actually started. Under her original colours - they enjoy reading her occasional comments about bikes 
)... but then you even thought NTC was Paul at one point 
or "his moll" 
She ist happily married mit kittens und lives in deepest darkest N Yorks - miles from anywhere.
But... anyone who disagrees mit you is "lying" und laws of libel clearly do not apply to you - but then again you think you are safe in the gabon
But you still have not proved why a camera saves a life. Drver can drive like right twazak und cause accident which maims und kills -even on or under speed limit.
Ist bizarrest logic.
)... but then you even thought NTC was Paul at one point or "his moll" She ist happily married mit kittens und lives in deepest darkest N Yorks - miles from anywhere.
But... anyone who disagrees mit you is "lying" und laws of libel clearly do not apply to you - but then again you think you are safe in the gabon
But you still have not proved why a camera saves a life. Drver can drive like right twazak und cause accident which maims und kills -even on or under speed limit.
Ist bizarrest logic.
spindrift said:
Paul Smith's research/comments on road safety are a lot more relevant than what the Speed Camera lot say. He has support from a lot of very experienced drivers, police and road users.
I ask you, Spindrift. Do you drive? How experienced a driver are you? How far do you drive in a year (more or less than 30K a year?) and how over how many years? Also do you have a clean license and how's your accident history?
This is not a trick question, just curious
For the record I have covered 1.25 Million miles in the last 14 years. During this time I have acquired a maximum no-claims bonus on my insurance, and have carried a clean license for the bulk of this time (apart from a couple of speeding convictions in '98).
Yes I drive, a fiesta if you must know. I am also a pedestrian and cyclist.
...and? - please answer the remaining questions.
I am also a pedestrian, though haven't cycled for a few years.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff