Tonight with Trevor MacDonald on motoring fines
Discussion
welsh blackbird said:
By contrast, David Jamieson is a total arse!
Yes cherry picks his stats again, calls Garvin a liar (all but), and again tries to suggest that breaking a speed limit makes you a dangerous driver and you deserve all you get - this guy really made me want to throw something heavy at the screen.
What's hard to understand?
Deaths overall are up, but NOT where the cameras are. Sod the fact that more people have died - it's clearly their fault for dying on roads without cameras - answer? Buy more and more cameras, producing revenue (sorry, increasing safety) from every road. I can't be the only person to have modified my driving routes to avoid cameras - almost guarantees a reduction in traffic on the camera routes, thereby suggesting a likely reduction in casualties at those sites, no?
Can't imagine how the chap who essentially called the Chief in Durham a liar on national tv is going to go unrewarded for his brave comments...
Deaths overall are up, but NOT where the cameras are. Sod the fact that more people have died - it's clearly their fault for dying on roads without cameras - answer? Buy more and more cameras, producing revenue (sorry, increasing safety) from every road. I can't be the only person to have modified my driving routes to avoid cameras - almost guarantees a reduction in traffic on the camera routes, thereby suggesting a likely reduction in casualties at those sites, no?
Can't imagine how the chap who essentially called the Chief in Durham a liar on national tv is going to go unrewarded for his brave comments...
welsh blackbird said:
Just watched it; not bad.
That Paul Garvin is my hero! He should replace Brunstrom as head of traffic policing at ACPO.
By contrast, David Jamieson is a total arse!
Yes I think Paul Garvin is to be credited for standing firm in the face of all the pro-camera twerps, and there's no shortage of them, alas.
What I especially like also is his policy of trying to keep the young drivers out of trouble. I'm not sure how he is doing it but that is very good idea and I wish him every success on all fronts.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
softwaresorcerer said:
What's hard to understand?
Deaths overall are up, but NOT where the cameras are. Sod the fact that more people have died - it's clearly their fault for dying on roads without cameras - answer? Buy more and more cameras, producing revenue (sorry, increasing safety) from every road. I can't be the only person to have modified my driving routes to avoid cameras - almost guarantees a reduction in traffic on the camera routes, thereby suggesting a likely reduction in casualties at those sites, no?
Can't imagine how the chap who essentially called the Chief in Durham a liar on national tv is going to go unrewarded for his brave comments...
Paul Smith of Safespeed has already explained the reduction in accidents at some camera sites as being mainly due to 'regression to the mean' or a return to normal.
Some of those cameras could be removed and the bunches of flowers that sometimes appear at fatal accident sites left in place.
The next year it is quite likely, unless there is a road engineering problem, there will be no fatality in the same location. So bunches of flowers save lives just as effectively as speed cameras.
Notice the cranky little man from Cleveland scamera partnership, when told of an increase in deaths, immediately retorted, " not at the camera sites"
But they told us the cameras were only being placed where most accidents were happening and were reducing deaths by 35%.
mechsympathy said:
He then said that while driver behaviour was changing at camera sites (Apart, obviously, from the however many each year getting caught
) this change wasn't carrying over elsewhere.
You can see where his myopic thinking is taking him. Not cameras don't work, but we need more cameras
Exactly the point I was trying to make.
To be honest, I'm quite prepared to believe there have been reductions in fatalities actually at the camera sites, caused in part by modification of driving style, rather like the 'halo' effect a marked trafpol car creates. I do however struggle to come to terms with the thinking that is apparently attempting to justify, or somehow explain away increased deaths on our roads, as being supportive of the cameras. It seems clear to me that figures haven't seen fantastic improvements following widespread implementation of these cameras, and it's time to step back and ponder the next move. Would you be able to sleep at night if you were responsible for say doubling the numbers of cameras, if the next year's statistics then indicated another increase in overall deaths? I can only speak for myself, but I'm not happy with this situation. The key figure, the ONLY number that matters, is the total number of people dying on the roads, not WHERE they happen to die.
I strongly suspect that now reports of the calibre fronted by Mr MacDonald are appearing on primetime tv, there should be a pause for thought by the powers that be, and a careful reconsideration of the future for our road system.
Sadly, I know it won't happen, and here's a good reason why. My own father-in-law was, until he retired recently, head of highways planning for a large local authority. No problem with that, you might think, until you learn that he can't drive. Now, to me that sums up the entire problem - if the chaps in charge don't know what they are talking about, what hope is there? How can balanced decisions be taken?
a friends 5 year old son was emphatically saying 'he really does needs more balloons in his bedroom' and getting upset when he was not allowed more then 10.
and no logical/reasoned persuasion would make him change his mind that 10 really was enough.... why? because 'more balloons are better'. -
when he realised 'he' actually wasnt going to get anymore, he said 'emma (sister) wants the balloons'
so he is now doing it for someone else even though emma is 9 months old and clearly has not expressed an opinion on the subject.
Anyone see a link with the Scameras? ( even a weak link perhpas)
and no logical/reasoned persuasion would make him change his mind that 10 really was enough.... why? because 'more balloons are better'. -
when he realised 'he' actually wasnt going to get anymore, he said 'emma (sister) wants the balloons'
so he is now doing it for someone else even though emma is 9 months old and clearly has not expressed an opinion on the subject.
Anyone see a link with the Scameras? ( even a weak link perhpas)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff