SCP stupidity strikes again

[puggit]

Try out this kids quiz from Wiltshire's finest scammers:

www.safetycameraswiltshire.co.uk

For each question you get right the little bastard in the graphics takes another agonising step slowly across the zebra crossing. When you finish, he stays on the road and starts flipping somersaults.

You couldn't make it up

PS I got 19/20 right first time. Silly me thought the safest thing to do when trying to cross near parked cars was to walk to the end of the cars and use the green cross code. Obviously the scammers know more then me about road safety...

[Mr Whippy]

Got the same one wrong too. Stupid really.

The website is awfull too, you'd think with all the money they rake in they could afford a well made website, or at least a web developer with some skills in design...

Quite funny to see the left hand navigation won't work if your blind and use a text reader, is that discrimination against blind people...

The 40% reduction in casualties by 2010 also amuses me. It'll be funny what excuses they come up with in 2010. We'll have to lower limits by 50% springs to mind

Dave

[james_j]

The slimy b@stards will do anything to justify their business.

Reading their pathetic attempts at self-justification on their website will only raise the blood pressure of anyone who can think for themself.

[pdV6]

puggit said:

Silly me thought the safest thing to do when trying to cross near parked cars was to walk to the end of the cars and use the green cross code. Obviously the scammers know more then me about road safety...

Actually, the question is worded sneakily... the answer I guess you picked actually says something like "move to the edge of the parked cars and use the GCC", I think implying that you would step onto the road between the parked cars before looking to see if anything's coming. As far as I could see, there wasn't actually an option to look for a decent gap between cars to use, as per the actual GCC

[plasticpig]

Mr Whippy said:

Got the same one wrong too. Stupid really. Quite funny to see the left hand navigation won't work if your blind and use a text reader, is that discrimination against blind people... Dave

Really? Then they are breaking the law under the Disibilatiy Discrimention Act. I think they would be classed as a public body so that is a big no no. I feel a letter of complaint coming on

[deeps]

Mr Whippy said:

The 40% reduction in casualties by 2010 also amuses me. It'll be funny what excuses they come up with in 2010. We'll have to lower limits by 50% springs to mind Dave

Yes, they all quote that one and it should be their downfall Surely they'll have to admit that speed cameras don't work and scrap the whole policy in 2010. Excuses wont do, we will have to make sure of that.

[Mr Whippy]

plasticpig said:

Mr Whippy said: Got the same one wrong too. Stupid really. Quite funny to see the left hand navigation won't work if your blind and use a text reader, is that discrimination against blind people... Dave Really? Then they are breaking the law under the Disibilatiy Discrimention Act. I think they would be classed as a public body so that is a big no no. I feel a letter of complaint coming on

Think so. I should know this as it's my job, kinda. I'll ask one of the "guru's" tomorrow and if it's not very compatible with blind people we shall write a complaint

Dave

[Peter Ward]

I got 20/20 . But you did help with that Q on crossing near parked cars.

But did you see the "independent" review of speed camera effectiveness linked from the same site? (www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/downloadable/dft_rdsafety_610816.pdf) "Independent" here means created by PA Consulting, who have made millions out of the speed camera scam and no doubt will continue to do so. I hardly think they are qualified to release a report that is referred to as "indpendent".

I haven't read all of it, but the executive summary has all sorts of claims, with a huge caveat in the middle....

report said:

[At camera sites] Both casualties and deaths were down – after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.

So this "independent" report did not take account of the most obvious relevant factor in reduction in accidents/KSIs. You might as well stop reading here then, rather than waste your time reading any further.

[paulhol]

i was quite hoping to see the little virtual kid get mown down by a speeding bus when i got a question wrong