SCP can have it's cake and eat it
SCP can have it's cake and eat it
Author
Discussion

cuneus

Original Poster:

5,963 posts

272 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
SEVEN people were killed or injured after a speed camera was put on a stretch of road that used to have NO accidents.

The camera could be pulled down after the string of crashes — all within 750 metres of it.

Nobody was hurt in the three years before the camera was installed on Bristol Road South in Northfield, Birmingham.

West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership — which runs the camera — admitted: “Clearly it is a concern when casualties increase like this and we will be doing everything we can to reduce them.

“But there is no evidence to suggest that this camera is causing the crashes.”

puggit

49,809 posts

278 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
There's a similar camera in Reading - no accidents in 7 years leading up to the installation - then a spate of accidents the year afterwards.

maxrider

2,481 posts

266 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
cuneus said:
SEVEN people were killed or injured after a speed camera was put on a stretch of road that used to have NO accidents.

“But there is no evidence to suggest that this camera is causing the crashes.”




How much 'evidence' do you need you CTS!! These w@nkers are totally out of control.

(West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership)

>> Edited by maxrider on Friday 24th June 13:25

deltafox

3,839 posts

262 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
Prompted a rant......

Dear Mr Scammer,

In respect of the so called "safety" camera installed on this road. (named in subject line)

I find your attitudes towards road safety to be totally at odds with plain old fashioned common sense.
Instead its replaced by dogma and stupidity, greed and disinformation.

The above scamera site for instance is a prime example of your detestable ideals and attitudes towards the safety of the public.
How so? Ok then, how about this.
In EVERY instance of you people talking about speed cameras, you ALWAYS make the claim that " since the cameras were installed ksi's fell by 39%" etc etc .
However, when a scamera is installed and the deaths at the site go UP from a ZERO level as in the above stated location, you dont seem to believe that your beloved greed cameras could have contributed in any way whatsoever, do you? At least thats the face you losers show the public.

Thats the dogma and stupidity part............i just thought id point that bit out in case it was too highbrow for you to comprehend, in which case, feel free to read it again a few million times till you DO get it.

Do you want to save lives? Do want to stop injuries and collisions? You do???? Then do everyone a favour and take a fatal overdose of your medications you greedy scammers and let some PROFESSIONAL people take charge of road safety, not you chancers and your "to hell with lives, we want cash" cameras!!!!!

Not (very) yours, Mr Happy.

shotokan

157 posts

264 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
Same thing everywhere - down in Pt Talbot in South Wales traffic comes to a virtual standstill every workday as people slow for a 50mph zone with a fixed camera about 1/2 a mile into it. The approach (Eastbound) to the 50 zone is dead straight for over a mile with excellent surface etc. I've seen LOADS of rear-end shunt type accidents there since the SCAM was installed...

Add this to the panic braking you see on motorways when mobile cams are visible on bridges and you have a major hazard. I'd love to see statistics on the number of accidents caused by Scams (of course we won't see objective UK-wide data - no way the liars in office would ever admit to causing a problem!)

smeggy

3,241 posts

269 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
How did they justify the placement of the camera if there were no prior KSIs?



cuneus said:
The camera could be pulled down after the string of crashes

So what will they do? Nothing?
Or will they switch it off; its presence alone will still causing crashes, thereby giving justification to turn it back on.


>> Edited by smeggy on Friday 24th June 14:11

esselte

14,626 posts

297 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
puggit said:
There's a similar camera in Reading - no accidents in 7 years leading up to the installation - then a spate of accidents the year afterwards.


If there were no accidents previously how come the camera was there in the first place?

Flat in Fifth

48,801 posts

281 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
Funnily enough this morning was trundling up one of my local byways at cock-on the 50 limit. Yes I'd seen the scantily marked scammer estate ahead slightly away from his normal plot, but if you know what and where to look.

I'd noticed it but the local force driving school car immediately behind me didn't.

Methinks someone will be paying for a round of cream buns later.

puggit

49,809 posts

278 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
Scameraships can place cameras where there is a history of speeding and where there is public concerns about accidents IIRC.

This site in Reading is a rat run in a residential zone with schools nearby - so isn't a terrible location!

However - the stats prove otherwise...

Camera installed in Feb 1995:
1990 0 incidents
1991 0 incidents
1992 0 incidents
1993 0 incidents
1994 0 incidents
1995 2 slight injuries
1996 4 slight injuries
1997 1 slight
1998 1 slight
1999 0 incidents
2000 0 incidents
2001 0 incidents
2002 1 slight
2003 1 slight

smeggy

3,241 posts

269 months

Friday 24th June 2005
quotequote all
puggit said:
Scameraships can place cameras where there is a history of speeding and where there is public concerns about accidents IIRC.
Well that's open to interpretation.
NIMBYs are running the country