Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Poll: Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Total Members Polled: 478
Discussion
mph1977 said:
the majority of RTCs are not accidents, hence the change in terminology.
But the terminology is irrelevant for the purpose of what I was saying. All crashes require a number of things to happen in order for them to occur. The idiot doing 70 mph in a 30 limit isn't guaranteed to crash, other things also have to happe. Such as someone crossing the road or a car pulling out that doesn't judge the speed of the approaching nutter. So while you can use statistics to calculate the probability that something will happen based on past events you cannot predict individual events.singlecoil said:
mph1977 said:
have you taken lessons in being thick or are you just a 'kipper ?
I anticipated an answer along these lines, but if anybody's being thick, it's you for not realising that trying to give traffic accidents a different name won't change the fact that they are accidents. You can call them something else as well, if you like, collision for instance, but they are still accidents.It's simple-
Average traffic 'collision'-
Did it happen? Yes
Was it a good, neutral or bad thing? Bad
Did anyone mean for it to happen? No
ACCIDENT
You can read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident
mph1977 said:
singlecoil said:
mph1977 said:
have you taken lessons in being thick or are you just a 'kipper ?
I anticipated an answer along these lines, but if anybody's being thick, it's you for not realising that trying to give traffic accidents a different name won't change the fact that they are accidents. You can call them something else as well, if you like, collision for instance, but they are still accidents.It's simple-
Average traffic 'collision'-
Did it happen? Yes
Was it a good, neutral or bad thing? Bad
Did anyone mean for it to happen? No
ACCIDENT
You can read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident
mph1977 said:
An Accident is a freak and unpredictible event which cannot be reasonably foreseen and risks ameliorated. most collisions can be foreseen and the risks amerolirated.
I was under the impression that the word accident was dropped in favour of collision because it gave the impression that no one was to blame. I don't think it matters what word you use, what is being talked about hasn't changed.Devil2575 said:
mph1977 said:
An Accident is a freak and unpredictible event which cannot be reasonably foreseen and risks ameliorated. most collisions can be foreseen and the risks amerolirated.
I was under the impression that the word accident was dropped in favour of collision because it gave the impression that no one was to blame. Devil2575 said:
I don't think it matters what word you use, what is being talked about hasn't changed.
Now what was that again? £284 million? that's a good incentive to encourage safety
http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
2013BRM said:
£284 million? that's a good incentive to encourage safety
http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Only 700 drivers from all those on that section of M25 in two months.http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Seems like it's working in encouraging compliance with the limit then because that's a small percentage of drivers who would have driven past in two moths.
Devil2575 said:
mph1977 said:
An Accident is a freak and unpredictible event which cannot be reasonably foreseen and risks ameliorated. most collisions can be foreseen and the risks amerolirated.
I was under the impression that the word accident was dropped in favour of collision because it gave the impression that no one was to blame. I don't think it matters what word you use, what is being talked about hasn't changed.to suggest that road traffic collisions cannot be predicted and that most of them are due to freak and unpredictable occurences is patently wrong vs.
human factors such as inattention
mechanical failure that could be reasonably predicted ( and ameliorated by proper servicing, inspection and basic mechanical sympathy )
poor infrastructure engineering meaning that risks are not ALARP
and the active and choosing to be deliberately negligent actions of drivers and other road users
mph1977 said:
An Accident is a freak and unpredictible event which cannot be reasonably foreseen and risks ameliorated. most collisions can be foreseen and the risks amerolirated.
Oh yeah? So why don't the people who have them foresee them then, and stop themselves from having them then?Could it be because they are actually accidents?
Most of them would be someone's fault, but unless you can prove they did it deliberately, then they are still accidents.
Accidents.
RobinOakapple said:
mph1977 said:
An Accident is a freak and unpredictible event which cannot be reasonably foreseen and risks ameliorated. most collisions can be foreseen and the risks amerolirated.
Oh yeah? So why don't the people who have them foresee them then, and stop themselves from having them then?Could it be because they are actually accidents?
Most of them would be someone's fault, but unless you can prove they did it deliberately, then they are still accidents.
Accidents.
If someone routinely is inattentive , drives well in excess of the speed limits and does so in in appropirate places it is far more likely that they will have an RTC than than someone drives as per the standards expected of a DSA test and it.s likely that the second driver is more likely to have a collisions than someone who drives to IAM test pass / RoSPA Silver / to the standard of a ES response driver but not in response mode standards ...
mph1977 said:
RobinOakapple said:
mph1977 said:
An Accident is a freak and unpredictible event which cannot be reasonably foreseen and risks ameliorated. most collisions can be foreseen and the risks amerolirated.
Oh yeah? So why don't the people who have them foresee them then, and stop themselves from having them then?Could it be because they are actually accidents?
Most of them would be someone's fault, but unless you can prove they did it deliberately, then they are still accidents.
Accidents.
If someone routinely is inattentive , drives well in excess of the speed limits and does so in in appropirate places it is far more likely that they will have an RTC than than someone drives as per the standards expected of a DSA test and it.s likely that the second driver is more likely to have a collisions than someone who drives to IAM test pass / RoSPA Silver / to the standard of a ES response driver but not in response mode standards ...
RobinOakapple said:
Not confusing anything chum, that's you. Accidents are accidents and the only things that stop them from being accidents is if they are deliberate. Never mind your rospa this and Iam that, get a dictionary and look it up!
you have decided that the meaning of accident is one possible meaning given by one dictionary, and in typical PH style which borders on FoTL any other defintion is incorrect. i presume in that case you subscribe to the concept insha'Allah my friend ..
mph1977 said:
you have decided that the meaning of accident is one possible meaning given by one dictionary, and in typical PH style which borders on FoTL any other defintion is incorrect.
i presume in that case you subscribe to the concept insha'Allah my friend ..
You won't get away with your Newspeak redefinition of accident by throwing in bits of jargon and initials, if it wasn't deliberate then it's an accident. Not one dictionary, but all of them.i presume in that case you subscribe to the concept insha'Allah my friend ..
The
mph1977 said:
because accidents are freak and unpredictable occurences no one can be blamed , e.g. 'act of god' type clauses
to suggest that road traffic collisions cannot be predicted and that most of them are due to freak and unpredictable occurences is patently wrong vs.
human factors such as inattention
mechanical failure that could be reasonably predicted ( and ameliorated by proper servicing, inspection and basic mechanical sympathy )
poor infrastructure engineering meaning that risks are not ALARP
and the active and choosing to be deliberately negligent actions of drivers and other road users
I agree to a large extent but I don't agree they are entirely predictable. An increased risk due to factors such as road layout, driver behaviour and weather conditions may make a crash very likely, such as in a Police chase, but that isn't the same as being able to predict something.to suggest that road traffic collisions cannot be predicted and that most of them are due to freak and unpredictable occurences is patently wrong vs.
human factors such as inattention
mechanical failure that could be reasonably predicted ( and ameliorated by proper servicing, inspection and basic mechanical sympathy )
poor infrastructure engineering meaning that risks are not ALARP
and the active and choosing to be deliberately negligent actions of drivers and other road users
RobinOakapple said:
mph1977 said:
you have decided that the meaning of accident is one possible meaning given by one dictionary, and in typical PH style which borders on FoTL any other defintion is incorrect.
i presume in that case you subscribe to the concept insha'Allah my friend ..
You won't get away with your Newspeak redefinition of accident by throwing in bits of jargon and initials, if it wasn't deliberate then it's an accident. Not one dictionary, but all of them.i presume in that case you subscribe to the concept insha'Allah my friend ..
It's quite obvious that you want to play the 'kipper / FoTL line on this topic with there is only one true meaning and any deviation from it is all newspeak or 'elf'n'safetygornmad, innit .
taking the accidents are 'accidents ( by one dictionary ) line and we can;t do anything about them flies in the face of every professional and regulatory principal there is , It does not matter whether the profession is policing, engineering, the law or healthcare in this case as all are impacted by RTCs and have roles to play in reducing the death , disability and ongoing costs to the tax payer of of RTCs .
mph1977 said:
I've just looked in a number of dictionaries ( a couple of physical ones and several on line ) most offer a number of defintions for the work accident
It's quite obvious that you want to play the 'kipper / FoTL line on this topic with there is only one true meaning and any deviation from it is all newspeak or 'elf'n'safetygornmad, innit .
taking the accidents are 'accidents ( by one dictionary ) line and we can;t do anything about them flies in the face of every professional and regulatory principal there is , It does not matter whether the profession is policing, engineering, the law or healthcare in this case as all are impacted by RTCs and have roles to play in reducing the death , disability and ongoing costs to the tax payer of of RTCs .
Of course you can reduce the likelyness of accidents, all sorts of ways that can happen, you might even have mentioned some of them.It's quite obvious that you want to play the 'kipper / FoTL line on this topic with there is only one true meaning and any deviation from it is all newspeak or 'elf'n'safetygornmad, innit .
taking the accidents are 'accidents ( by one dictionary ) line and we can;t do anything about them flies in the face of every professional and regulatory principal there is , It does not matter whether the profession is policing, engineering, the law or healthcare in this case as all are impacted by RTCs and have roles to play in reducing the death , disability and ongoing costs to the tax payer of of RTCs .
But sometimes accidents happen, and after they have there is nothing you can do about them except find out who is to blame if anyone, and try to stop them happening again.
But that doesn't stop them from being accidents.
And lay off with the kipper comments because if you don't someone may suggest you are playing the idiot line.
mph1977 said:
I've just looked in a number of dictionaries ( a couple of physical ones and several on line ) most offer a number of defintions for the work accident
It's quite obvious that you want to play the 'kipper / FoTL line on this topic with there is only one true meaning and any deviation from it is all newspeak or 'elf'n'safetygornmad, innit .
taking the accidents are 'accidents ( by one dictionary ) line and we can;t do anything about them flies in the face of every professional and regulatory principal there is , It does not matter whether the profession is policing, engineering, the law or healthcare in this case as all are impacted by RTCs and have roles to play in reducing the death , disability and ongoing costs to the tax payer of of RTCs .
Is anyone saying that you can't do anything about them?It's quite obvious that you want to play the 'kipper / FoTL line on this topic with there is only one true meaning and any deviation from it is all newspeak or 'elf'n'safetygornmad, innit .
taking the accidents are 'accidents ( by one dictionary ) line and we can;t do anything about them flies in the face of every professional and regulatory principal there is , It does not matter whether the profession is policing, engineering, the law or healthcare in this case as all are impacted by RTCs and have roles to play in reducing the death , disability and ongoing costs to the tax payer of of RTCs .
You can't totally eliminate accidents/collisions but you can take actions to minimise the risk and hence probability that they will occur. I don't actually think it matters what word you use.
vonhosen said:
2013BRM said:
£284 million? that's a good incentive to encourage safety
http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Only 700 drivers from all those on that section of M25 in two months.http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Seems like it's working in encouraging compliance with the limit then because that's a small percentage of drivers who would have driven past in two moths.
2013BRM said:
vonhosen said:
2013BRM said:
£284 million? that's a good incentive to encourage safety
http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Only 700 drivers from all those on that section of M25 in two months.http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Seems like it's working in encouraging compliance with the limit then because that's a small percentage of drivers who would have driven past in two moths.
This might serve to put a further dent in the figures.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff