More scamera emails.
Discussion
Well its the turn of derbyshires scamera club this time.
They just ask for it!
Hi, I have a few queries/observations regarding your site.
On the "about us" page you state the following:
"Excessive and inappropriate speed is the biggest cause in all road collisions. Every year 3500 people die on the roads of Great Britain, and every two weeks 3 people die, 22 are seriously injured and 169 people are slightly injured on the Derbyshire road network"
This is an absolute fabrication! Pure and simple selective presentation of statistcs!
TRL323 cited innapropriate speed as being the direct "cause" of some 7.3% of accidents!
West Midland Accident review, years 1999 thru 2002 put the contribution of speed as an accident causer at just 4.3%! Wheres YOUR evidence?
I am NOT talking about contribution to SEVERITY, i am talking about accident "initiation", or cause.
On the "camera types" page, you state the following:
"All of the cameras are located at collision hotspots that have a history of casualties"
Casualties caused by what exactly? By morons playing chicken? Pedestrians jay walking? ALL and any causes?
I suspect that you include ALL causes, as it gives you an opportunity to quote the "speed kills" mantra and allows you to site a speed camera at a location that otherwise wouldnt warrant it.
Take the following example: Road J has a history of accidents, allbeit somewhat sparsely spaced.
One night, a joyrider in a stolen car, persued by police (rightly so) collides with an oncoming car, killing himself and those in the other vehicle.
Now, correct me if my assumption is incorrect, but, is it not true, that you would "add in" the cause of this crash as "caused by excessive speed", instead of the true cause? The true cause being a criminal attempting to evade capture. Therefore, this raises the ksi's for Road J and gives you the necessary stats to site a speed camera.
Isnt this what is actually happening?
Further on down this page the following text appears:
"Two housings in Hayfield, an area of outstanding natural beauty within the Peak District National Park, have been left in the original grey colour as it was felt that yellow cameras would spoil the area"
Hmmm, so a speed camera painted yellow is going to spoil the area, but a multiple death accident isnt?
I can say this, simply because you always state that "safety cameras" prevent crashes! OOPs, er, they dont!
An invisible speed camera will have even less influence than a visible one, and by the statement above, you have compromised the "safety" of road users in this area simply for reasons of aesthetics of the surrounding countryside! Some safety strategy that is!
Finally on this page is a nice photo of a "safety camera van"...really?
This van is parked in such a way as to be an obstruction, facing head on into the traffic flow, and with its "hi vis" markings at the rear and sides obscured due to its positioning.
I smell profit over safety....again!
The "speed challenge" game was extremely childish, dont you think?
It bears absolutely NO relationship to the real world whatsover! If you wanted to get a "speed kills" point across, you could have made a better effort, surely?
I found i did quite well by driving on the pavements......
The fact or fiction part of the site.
The smug answer given by your "safety stooge" is quite typical. In actual fact, the police DO get money from the scheme as Richard Brunstrom recently admitted! Yet more disinformation.
The unbeleiver in the pub dosent believe that cameras bring down crashes and asks what proof there is, but Mr safety stooge dosent offer any. He just quotes that
camera enforcement caused injuries to fall by 18% on enforced roads! WOW! And then he thinks that his kids are safer getting hit by a 38 ton truck at 20mph than a car at 35.....not very bright.
I remain unconvinced, and im very glad to be able to put up more of a reasoned argument than your "pub guy".
I take exception to the following statements on your site, as they are obviously based on prompting an emotional response rather than based on hard fact and logic.
At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill a pedestrian than you would at 30mph
If travelling at 40mph and you hit a child, you are likely to kill that child.
If travelling at 30mph and you hit a child, that child has a 50/50 chance of survival.
If travelling at 20mph and you hit a child, that child is likely to survive and may be uninjured.
ALL of the above statements are based upon one assumption: That someone is hit. The above statements imply that at anything above a "dumb"limit, i am more likely to "hit" them.
I dont see how this mechanism works.
Are they more likely to jump out in front of me or something? Just because im going faster?
The casualty rate at night is double that of the daylight rate.
Explain please?
I would hope to recieve detailed and comprehensive responses to the above points and look forward to them.
Kindest regards.
They just ask for it!
Hi, I have a few queries/observations regarding your site.
On the "about us" page you state the following:
"Excessive and inappropriate speed is the biggest cause in all road collisions. Every year 3500 people die on the roads of Great Britain, and every two weeks 3 people die, 22 are seriously injured and 169 people are slightly injured on the Derbyshire road network"
This is an absolute fabrication! Pure and simple selective presentation of statistcs!
TRL323 cited innapropriate speed as being the direct "cause" of some 7.3% of accidents!
West Midland Accident review, years 1999 thru 2002 put the contribution of speed as an accident causer at just 4.3%! Wheres YOUR evidence?
I am NOT talking about contribution to SEVERITY, i am talking about accident "initiation", or cause.
On the "camera types" page, you state the following:
"All of the cameras are located at collision hotspots that have a history of casualties"
Casualties caused by what exactly? By morons playing chicken? Pedestrians jay walking? ALL and any causes?
I suspect that you include ALL causes, as it gives you an opportunity to quote the "speed kills" mantra and allows you to site a speed camera at a location that otherwise wouldnt warrant it.
Take the following example: Road J has a history of accidents, allbeit somewhat sparsely spaced.
One night, a joyrider in a stolen car, persued by police (rightly so) collides with an oncoming car, killing himself and those in the other vehicle.
Now, correct me if my assumption is incorrect, but, is it not true, that you would "add in" the cause of this crash as "caused by excessive speed", instead of the true cause? The true cause being a criminal attempting to evade capture. Therefore, this raises the ksi's for Road J and gives you the necessary stats to site a speed camera.
Isnt this what is actually happening?
Further on down this page the following text appears:
"Two housings in Hayfield, an area of outstanding natural beauty within the Peak District National Park, have been left in the original grey colour as it was felt that yellow cameras would spoil the area"
Hmmm, so a speed camera painted yellow is going to spoil the area, but a multiple death accident isnt?
I can say this, simply because you always state that "safety cameras" prevent crashes! OOPs, er, they dont!
An invisible speed camera will have even less influence than a visible one, and by the statement above, you have compromised the "safety" of road users in this area simply for reasons of aesthetics of the surrounding countryside! Some safety strategy that is!
Finally on this page is a nice photo of a "safety camera van"...really?
This van is parked in such a way as to be an obstruction, facing head on into the traffic flow, and with its "hi vis" markings at the rear and sides obscured due to its positioning.
I smell profit over safety....again!
The "speed challenge" game was extremely childish, dont you think?
It bears absolutely NO relationship to the real world whatsover! If you wanted to get a "speed kills" point across, you could have made a better effort, surely?
I found i did quite well by driving on the pavements......
The fact or fiction part of the site.
The smug answer given by your "safety stooge" is quite typical. In actual fact, the police DO get money from the scheme as Richard Brunstrom recently admitted! Yet more disinformation.
The unbeleiver in the pub dosent believe that cameras bring down crashes and asks what proof there is, but Mr safety stooge dosent offer any. He just quotes that
camera enforcement caused injuries to fall by 18% on enforced roads! WOW! And then he thinks that his kids are safer getting hit by a 38 ton truck at 20mph than a car at 35.....not very bright.
I remain unconvinced, and im very glad to be able to put up more of a reasoned argument than your "pub guy".
I take exception to the following statements on your site, as they are obviously based on prompting an emotional response rather than based on hard fact and logic.
At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill a pedestrian than you would at 30mph
If travelling at 40mph and you hit a child, you are likely to kill that child.
If travelling at 30mph and you hit a child, that child has a 50/50 chance of survival.
If travelling at 20mph and you hit a child, that child is likely to survive and may be uninjured.
ALL of the above statements are based upon one assumption: That someone is hit. The above statements imply that at anything above a "dumb"limit, i am more likely to "hit" them.
I dont see how this mechanism works.
Are they more likely to jump out in front of me or something? Just because im going faster?
The casualty rate at night is double that of the daylight rate.
Explain please?
I would hope to recieve detailed and comprehensive responses to the above points and look forward to them.
Kindest regards.
deltaf said:
The "speed challenge" game was extremely childish, dont you think?
It bears absolutely NO relationship to the real world whatsover! If you wanted to get a "speed kills" point across, you could have made a better effort, surely?
I found i did quite well by driving on the pavements......
absolutely classic mate, you must post their reply! p.s. have you got a link to this game?
You forgot to add the bit about...
"If Child-A jumps out from between parked cars when I am travelling at 30mph I can slow down enough in time and only cripple them.
However, if the same Child-A jumps out from between parked cars and I am travelling at 35mph then I am 200 yards further along the same road, don't have to brake,a nd cause no injury whatsoever!
Hence, speed does not kill, but stupid children die and rightly so!"
"If Child-A jumps out from between parked cars when I am travelling at 30mph I can slow down enough in time and only cripple them.
However, if the same Child-A jumps out from between parked cars and I am travelling at 35mph then I am 200 yards further along the same road, don't have to brake,a nd cause no injury whatsoever!
Hence, speed does not kill, but stupid children die and rightly so!"
onedsla said:
www.slowitdown.co.uk/index.asp
It's quite good really.
What utter rot.
I can see slightly further than 6 car lengths usually. If not, I'm only doing 4mph.
And as pointed out, the brakes are truely dreadful. I actually thing it takes off faster than it stops.
ers made me 10 minutes late for work...Right. Just tried to get to work withou killing anyone. Steady 30mph.
Not only was I late (who cares), but I encountered no crossings and crashed into a parked car because my mind wanders.
I trust everyone has noticed that at 35mph you can't actually stop in the distance you can see on screen. Quite a lot of a scam.
Not only was I late (who cares), but I encountered no crossings and crashed into a parked car because my mind wanders.
I trust everyone has noticed that at 35mph you can't actually stop in the distance you can see on screen. Quite a lot of a scam.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff