Interesting speed camera stuff, BMJ.
Discussion
Check out who the responses are coming from.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7487/331#96356
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7487/331#96356
Very interesting thread that one. Some of the points were very well made but wasn't it strange that a troll appeared so quickly to try to defend what highly educated well read medical people can see is indefensible. And how typical that the think of the kiddies and speedophiles gets trotted out. Won't be long before roadpeace, brake, transport 2000 will be using the thread to go for the guilt angle again.
Interesting to see how supposedly educated people can be so blinkered and unwilling to consider on than one point of view. I particularly enjoyed the post from Ediriweera who clearly spent infinitely more time on composing a reply that looked like a scientific paper, complete with references and surnames scattered throughout, than she ever did on the actual content.
OTOH the "Research Student" clearly isn't progressing far in his chosen field. Spouting emotive propaganda with no mention of evidence or sources is not going to impress the examiners who read his final thesis, unless of course he's planning on working for Brake or T2000.
OTOH the "Research Student" clearly isn't progressing far in his chosen field. Spouting emotive propaganda with no mention of evidence or sources is not going to impress the examiners who read his final thesis, unless of course he's planning on working for Brake or T2000.
I can see only one use for a camera at the roadside, to gather evidence.
Yes! that's right, you read it correctly. But evidence: not for prosecution, but for evidence of the cause of a particular problem at known "Blackspots" where accidents happen frequently.
These days it must be possible to continuosly record say: a blackspot road junction, traffic island, stretch of road, Etc, to find the cause, and re-engineer the site to eliminate the problem and thus save lives and make the road safer. Isn't that the goal? safer roads.
I can think of many roads where there is an accident waiting to happen through bad road engineering. Junctions, with no clear view left or right. Traffic light sequences which could be phased better.
If Brake, Trainspot 2000 (actually that's unfair to trainspotters) Etc were really interested in safer roads and NOT just viewing it all through an Anti-car mist, they'd realise the futility of erecting fixed or mobile photo booths throughout the land and think constructively about the problem.
Yes! that's right, you read it correctly. But evidence: not for prosecution, but for evidence of the cause of a particular problem at known "Blackspots" where accidents happen frequently.
These days it must be possible to continuosly record say: a blackspot road junction, traffic island, stretch of road, Etc, to find the cause, and re-engineer the site to eliminate the problem and thus save lives and make the road safer. Isn't that the goal? safer roads.
I can think of many roads where there is an accident waiting to happen through bad road engineering. Junctions, with no clear view left or right. Traffic light sequences which could be phased better.
If Brake, Trainspot 2000 (actually that's unfair to trainspotters) Etc were really interested in safer roads and NOT just viewing it all through an Anti-car mist, they'd realise the futility of erecting fixed or mobile photo booths throughout the land and think constructively about the problem.
Sorry but these idiots who are members of or share the views of Brake, Transport 2000 etc really do my head in. I have a couple of anti car mates who just cant grasp that GATSOs, TruVelos SPECS etc do not make our roads safer at all. As weve all said if your eyes are on your speedo, they are not on the road.
I haven't read the whole thread or, indeed, the whole paper.
Didn't feel it was necessary as I recall when it was announced that the "research" was going to be taking place, they already stated that they expected to find that scameras were reducing casualties.
Nothing like starting off aiming at the answer you want to find, is there?
IMO that makes the entire thing unscientific and little better than T2K propoganda.
Didn't feel it was necessary as I recall when it was announced that the "research" was going to be taking place, they already stated that they expected to find that scameras were reducing casualties.
Nothing like starting off aiming at the answer you want to find, is there?
IMO that makes the entire thing unscientific and little better than T2K propoganda.
8Pack said:
I can see only one use for a camera at the roadside, to gather evidence.
Yes! that's right, you read it correctly. But evidence: not for prosecution, but for evidence of the cause of a particular problem at known "Blackspots" where accidents happen frequently.
These days it must be possible to continuosly record say: a blackspot road junction, traffic island, stretch of road, Etc, to find the cause, and re-engineer the site to eliminate the problem and thus save lives and make the road safer. Isn't that the goal? safer roads.
I can think of many roads where there is an accident waiting to happen through bad road engineering. Junctions, with no clear view left or right. Traffic light sequences which could be phased better.
If Brake, Trainspot 2000 (actually that's unfair to trainspotters) Etc were really interested in safer roads and NOT just viewing it all through an Anti-car mist, they'd realise the futility of erecting fixed or mobile photo booths throughout the land and think constructively about the problem.
Good points, 8Pack. But isn't the government using speed reduction in lieu of simple safety engineering? And simple safety engineering in lieu of real road improvements?* That is, the cheapest possible solution it can get away with, rather than the best solution for drivers. And of course cameras are free so are the obvious first action rather than the last resort.
*What I'm thinking of is things like:
1) The A45 at Ryton. Firstly they put in the cameras, but now they're working on a roundabout. The ideal would be a graded junction
2) The M40 at A34 Oxford southbound junction. No cameras (yet), but they remove a lane from the M40 to give to the A34. The ideal would be one or more extra lanes, not a reduction in lanes
No - T2K
....nudge, nudge, wink, wink....www.transport2000.org.uk
Anti car, pro bus/train/cycling/walking group, sponsored by bus companies, led by that lovely Mr Michael Palin......who used to be funny
Anti car, pro bus/train/cycling/walking group, sponsored by bus companies, led by that lovely Mr Michael Palin......who used to be funny
Peter Ward said:
I can see only one use for a camera at the roadside, to gather evidence.
Yes! that's right, you read it correctly. But evidence: not for prosecution, but for evidence of the cause of a particular problem at known "Blackspots" where accidents happen frequently.
These days it must be possible to continuosly record say: a blackspot road junction, traffic island, stretch of road, Etc, to find the cause, and re-engineer the site to eliminate the problem and thus save lives and make the road safer. Isn't that the goal? safer roads.
I can think of many roads where there is an accident waiting to happen through bad road engineering. Junctions, with no clear view left or right. Traffic light sequences which could be phased better.
If Brake, Trainspot 2000 (actually that's unfair to trainspotters) Etc were really interested in safer roads and NOT just viewing it all through an Anti-car mist, they'd realise the futility of erecting fixed or mobile photo booths throughout the land and think constructively about the problem.
Good points, 8Pack. But isn't the government using speed reduction in lieu of simple safety engineering? And simple safety engineering in lieu of real road improvements?* That is, the cheapest possible solution it can get away with, rather than the best solution for drivers. And of course cameras are free so are the obvious first action rather than the last resort.
*What I'm thinking of is things like:
1) The A45 at Ryton. Firstly they put in the cameras, but now they're working on a roundabout. The ideal would be a graded junction
2) The M40 at A34 Oxford southbound junction. No cameras (yet), but they remove a lane from the M40 to give to the A34. The ideal would be one or more extra lanes, not a reduction in lanes
In a word Peter, "Yes", it's Government on the cheap, the accountants demand it and overule common sense IMO.
We have the worst of both worlds I think, cameras which are the wrong solution to the problem in the first place, and when they gather the money in, it goes on vast new offices, salaries more vans, more cameras, rather than fixing individual blackspot site deficiencies. If they were really interested in safety, they would spend their ill gotten gains in improving road safety.
not in making themselves richer. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff