Car Crash victims' pics on cameras
Discussion
Bounds Green Rd is one of the biggest cut throughs in North London.
Perhaps they would be better looking at the engineering of Londons road systems and the shortcuts that drivers make out of frustration rather than tugging on the emotional heart strings of people who in reality wont actually notice...
Perhaps they would be better looking at the engineering of Londons road systems and the shortcuts that drivers make out of frustration rather than tugging on the emotional heart strings of people who in reality wont actually notice...
PetrolTed said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3898615.stm
Interesting 'Ted.
Although I can understand someones reaction to losing a loved one, this is IMHO another cheap trick to try to revive the flagging support for scamera's. Once again, this sucks of "speed kills" so if we can reduce speed then accidents like this will go away. I dont know this area personally, but I'm sure there would be better ways at reducing these accidents than scams.
Your driving along, notice the Scamera...but no problem your within the limit, then you notice something else on the Scamera pole, momentarily you are distracted as you try to identify the 'pictures', during which time you have speeded up, pass through the camera zone, get flashed, shocked, looked at your speedo to confirm your speed and smash into another vehicle killing yourself and the other driver. Get your picture up on the pole though.
leosayer said:
If a camera won't work, then what will?
Camera's just take pictures, then send you a bill for the privilege.
Is the road at fault? Is it in need of repair? Does it require re-engineering to remove the blind bend, blind crest, narrow lanes etc etc.
Was the accident the result of routine driving, or someone on a rush etc etc.
swilly said:
If a camera won't work, then what will?
Camera's just take pictures, then send you a bill for the privilege.
Is the road at fault? Is it in need of repair? Does it require re-engineering to remove the blind bend, blind crest, narrow lanes etc etc.
Was the accident the result of routine driving, or someone on a rush etc etc.
Well this may be very much a minority viewpoint, but I still have my doubts about blaming the road for accidents, though I'm sure that will be justified in some cases. If something is seriously deceptive about a road then of course it should be corrected, but more often the trouble is caused by drivers simply not looking and dealing with situations properly. I think we should try to overcome that as a first priority. Surely that would amount to a more comprehensive reduction in all types of accident.
As for putting up pictures of road accident victims, I don't like the idea any more than I like the idea of placing flowers at the scene. I hear there have been moves in some areas to ban these displays, as they are suspected to have led to yet more accidents at these locations.
As for the emotive element generally, it is a fact that I can feel very upset about decent people suffering in road accidents, or indeed in any other way, and the people at BRAKE and similar organisations do not have a monopoly so far as emotions and compassion are concerned.
Best wishes all,
dave.
TripleS said:
Well this may be very much a minority viewpoint, but I still have my doubts about blaming the road for accidents, though I'm sure that will be justified in some cases. If something is seriously deceptive about a road then of course it should be corrected, but more often the trouble is caused by drivers simply not looking and dealing with situations properly. I think we should try to overcome that as a first priority. Surely that would amount to a more comprehensive reduction in all types of accident.
I agree but it seems that the first and only response is to "whack-up a speed camera" rather than trying to address the real problems. No point dealing with the symptoms, get to the cause. If the cause is the road and the bad engineering then fine. If its a case that traffic needs to be calmed, alerted or re-prioritised then fine. But a camera should be used as enforcement only if there are no other things that can be tried - criminalising sections of the population on the basis of profiteering and dodgy statistics isnt fair to anyone (including the public, victims and the police).
There are so many things that can be done, but support for the "speed kills" brigade seem to keep wining. Its a shame really as often the simplest and cheapest solutions are the best.... We can hope I suppose...
P.S. That article carried unsubstantiated statistics again then?
leosayer said:
If a camera won't work, then what will?
Removal of the major factors that are ACTUALLY causing the crashes would be a good start, not the minor percentage ones such as "speed".
"Cameras reduce deaths, cameras cut crashes, cameras stop drivers speeding, cameras make the world safer".
All arguments used by those "useful idiots" who dont grasp the fundamentals, and easily blown out of the water by the following statement;
If cameras do all of the above so very well, then why are more people dying on our roads, and why are more being had up for speeding?
There should be less deaths, and less tickets going out surely?
Conclusion: Cameras contribute NOTHING positive whatsoever to road safety and contribute MUCH to the "back pocket" fund of certain police forces and so called "partnerships". Nothing else explains their constant pushing for ever increasing numbers of these failures on a pole.
Its that simple.
deltaf said:Spot on deltaf
If a camera won't work, then what will?
Removal of the major factors that are ACTUALLY causing the crashes would be a good start, not the minor percentage ones such as "speed".
"Cameras reduce deaths, cameras cut crashes, cameras stop drivers speeding, cameras make the world safer".
All arguments used by those "useful idiots" who dont grasp the fundamentals, and easily blown out of the water by the following statement;
If cameras do all of the above so very well, then why are more people dying on our roads, and why are more being had up for speeding?
There should be less deaths, and less tickets going out surely?
Conclusion: Cameras contribute NOTHING positive whatsoever to road safety and contribute MUCH to the "back pocket" fund of certain police forces and so called "partnerships". Nothing else explains their constant pushing for ever increasing numbers of these failures on a pole.
Its that simple.
I salute you
chrisgr31 said:
If I read that article right one of those featured was one of 5 young people killed in a single accident. It would be interesting to have the full report into the reasons for the accident etc.
More interestingly, it also says that the camera location has had five fatalities in three years. And one crash involving - five fatalities.
So that's one fatal accident in three years, two speed cameras and a PR stunt by the SCP.
This is more from Janet and John's first book of psychology. It's a trick to try and add support for a failing venture. Interesting to watch the scameraships increasingly desperate measures to try and win ssupport.
Scameras don't work, what's the alternative? Plod, that's what. We can all see it, why can't the lentilists? Oh yeah, no brains, that's why
Scameras don't work, what's the alternative? Plod, that's what. We can all see it, why can't the lentilists? Oh yeah, no brains, that's why
I have no problem using gory pictures to make people realise they are driving something that can kill, and they should be concentrating on the job in hand. But the application in this manner does seem cheap tactics to enforce the speed kills messages and justify 2 more cameras. ( Do we even know speed was a factor in any of theses deaths? But of course it must have been, that is the only thing that we need to worry about when driving.... )
How about "Doing your lippy whilst driving kills!" or driving like a t*at kills!"
Once again they seem to be missing the fundamental point....
How about "Doing your lippy whilst driving kills!" or driving like a t*at kills!"
Once again they seem to be missing the fundamental point....
chrisgr31 said:
If I read that article right one of those featured was one of 5 young people killed in a single accident. It would be interesting to have the full report into the reasons for the accident etc.
I researched it when the article came out and posted the results on the SafeSpeed forum:
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=726
In short he was killed by an unlicensed drunk driver doing 60mph in somebody else's car.
Gareth
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff