spindrift Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Before I have to prove my number, how about you provide a source for the number you provided first? What number? You're not just delaying the exposure of the fact that you're making stuff up again? You claimed I lied, I asked where, you disappeared. Now you ask for some mysterious number you won't name before you admit you've made stuff up again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrywhite Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 What number? You're not just delaying the exposure of the fact that you're making stuff up again? You claimed I lied, I asked where, you disappeared. Now you ask for some mysterious number you won't name before you admit you've made stuff up again... Can you provide evidence to support your posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Anyone who doesn't roll over and die in awe of your opinion is now a speedophile. Your arrogance is quite impressive, in an offensive kind of way. Stop making stuff up. Anyone is free to disagree with me and won't get the abuse you hand out willy nilly. People who speed aggressively, whether below or above the posted limit (ie doing 30 in a 30 zone outside a school, in the wet ) is a speedophile. Not anybody else you make up. Just those who place their personal convenience over and above all other considerations, including the ten children EVERY DAY killed or seriously injured on the roads. Speedophiles pose a significantly greater danger to children than paedophiles do, unless you rank yourself among their number then the word 'speedophile' has nothing to do with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Do you have any of your own opinions or knowledge of this matter? You could have at least changed the wording.... You are not given a CRO - criminal record - number following a speeding offence and it is not recorded on the police national computer. That's got sod all to do with it. You said speeding isn't a crime. You're wrong. You may not like this, you may not like where the information comes from, but you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Can you provide evidence to support your posts? Yep. What do you want supporting? Third time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrywhite Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yep. What do you want supporting? Third time. The drivel you have prev posted summed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The drivel you have prev posted summed up... Which part did you feel was drivel and why? Fourth time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It would appear that Speed cameras may not reduce accidents as much as the Government would have us believe. The UK Statistics Authority has produced a report criticising the figures for casualty reductions... http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/uk-dftstats.pdf It would also appear that the British Medical Journal (BMJ) documented the problem in a 2006 report. While government statements lauded the benefits of speed cameras based on a claimed road injury rate that had fallen from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (before cameras) to 59.4 in 2004 (after cameras), hospital admission records showed that the road injury rate actually increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The BMJ attributed the discrepancy to the police undercounting the number of injury accidents that take place. The House of Commons Transport Committee earlier this month insisted that something be done to force DfT to produce more reliable reports." http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1210.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It would appear that Speed cameras may not reduce accidents as much as the Government would have us believe. The UK Statistics Authority has produced a report criticising the figures for casualty reductions... http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/uk-dftstats.pdf It would also appear that the British Medical Journal (BMJ) documented the problem in a 2006 report. While government statements lauded the benefits of speed cameras based on a claimed road injury rate that had fallen from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (before cameras) to 59.4 in 2004 (after cameras), hospital admission records showed that the road injury rate actually increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The BMJ attributed the discrepancy to the police undercounting the number of injury accidents that take place. The House of Commons Transport Committee earlier this month insisted that something be done to force DfT to produce more reliable reports." http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1210.asp Neither report effects the case for speed cameras. Traffic growth, the explosion in mobile phone use, increased in-car safety (as in risk compensation) all may have had an effect. The robust rule is, the higher the speed the greater the chance of collision and the higher the chance of serious injury. Speed cameras slow vehicle speeds and reduce accidents, the latest research from Liverpool University confirmed this even after allowing for regression to the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Neither report effects the case for speed cameras. Traffic growth, the explosion in mobile phone use, increased in-car safety (as in risk compensation) all may have had an effect. The robust rule is, the higher the speed the greater the chance of collision and the higher the chance of serious injury. Speed cameras slow vehicle speeds and reduce accidents, the latest research from Liverpool University confirmed this even after allowing for regression to the mean. Of course the reports affect the case for speed cameras. The figures given by the DfT are wrong. They over estimate the effect that speed cameras have in reducing accidents (the latest one more so than the 2006 BMJ one I'll concede). Speed cameras haven't met the accident reduction targets that they were supposed to, no matter what other 'robust' rules you care to apply. I would be interested to read the research by Liverpool university though, do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now