alchresearch Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 More made-up twaddle. You'll be saying people who oppose speeding drivers want the man with the red flag introduced next, that's another hoary old speedophile claim. Believe me, some forumers have used that old chestnut in a previous speed argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Believe me, some forumers have used that old chestnut in a previous speed argument! We've already had the 'I Suppose you want us all to driver at TEN MILES PER HOUR' straw man, which works best if said in your head in a Vicky Pollard accent, I find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I'm also waiting for "I'm more likely to hit someone with my eyes glued to the speedo"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) I'm also waiting for "I'm more likely to hit someone with my eyes glued to the speedo"! Oh, we've had 'Sleep-related deaths have rocketed because lower speeds cause drivers to fall asleep'. Which is a good one, this time best said in an accent like the janitor in Dinnerladies. Edited July 30, 2009 by spindrift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 ... Speed cameras do reduce accidents, say researchers Liverpool, UK - 9 September 2008: Scientists at the University of Liverpool have developed an accident prediction model which proves that speed cameras are effective in reducing the number of road traffic accidents by 20 per cent. http://liverpool.ac.uk/news/press_releases/2008/09/speed%20cameras.htm Thanks for the link, although there is not much substance to the report. No indication of sample sizes, etc. I have, however found some more quotes attributed to Dr Linda Mountain of Liverpool University, where she states:- ""Speed cameras do reduce accidents but not quite as much as has sometimes been claimed. "" "I think it's not reasonable to say that 100 lives a year are being saved. "The number has been overestimated by 50 per cent on the basis of our data. Nevertheless, that's a worthwhile saving." Dr Mountain said the assessment methods used by the Government and police authorities to evaluate speed camera success failed to take account of random "bad luck" at notorious accident spots. She said that clusters of accidents are not always caused by dangerous roads and can be caused purely by chance, which would mean the number of accidents would have fallen regardless of whether a camera is put there or not. Source :- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2712567/Speed-cameras-save-fewer-lives-than-claimed.html As I've stated before; I'm not anti speed camera, I'd sooner have them than speed bumps, which IMHO cause more vehicular damage, and more pollution. However you could say that I'm a speed camera sceptic due to the 'facts' spouted by the government and DfT being incorrect re their effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrywhite Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 More made-up twaddle. You'll be saying people who oppose speeding drivers want the man with the red flag introduced next, that's another hoary old speedophile claim. We have previousley established that I made the date up, having just reasearched the 30mph limit was introduced in 1934 - I rest my case. Just driving at 5 miles over the current 30 mph limit increases the chances of killing a pedestrian to 50%. How do you know? Reducing the speed limit to 20 mph would reduce the deaths and injuries of children by a considerable 67% - affecting 13,000 children - each year. How do you know? Still, since the deaths of children doesn't bother barry white, what about the financial cost: In 2007 over 30,000 pedestrians and over 16,000 cyclists were injured with 646 pedestrians and 136 cyclists killed. The NAO estimate that casualties for these two groups cost the economy over £3.4 billion in addition to the inevitable distress and health problems for the victims and their families. How much was the bill to the motorist?, think about the damage to the car. http://www.nao.org.uk/whats_new/0809/0809437.aspx Why do you want the rest of us to subsidise your reckless speeding barry? Why is speeding reckless? Can't you hire a racetrack for the day if you want to boost your ego and speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 We've already had the 'I Suppose you want us all to driver at TEN MILES PER HOUR' straw man, which works best if said in your head in a Vicky Pollard accent, I find. I believe it's called Reductio absurdum actually. Take an argument extend it to it's logical conclusion and see how silly it starts to look. If speed is dangerous (your assertion) then reduce speed, extend that until we're all stationary. If however inappropriate speed is dangerous (a far more sensible attitude IMO) then reduce inappropriate speed ad infinitum, we all get to keep moving. The robust rule is that if you make an absolute statement (ie not qualified in any way) then you're probably going to look silly when someone responds. Natch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Just driving at 5 miles over the current 30 mph limit increases the chances of killing a pedestrian to 50%. Established through extensive testing I presume? If you haven't run over more than 2% of the children in the country then I think we should question your grasp of statistics Seriously, how is this determined. Do you ask drivers who killed children just how fast they were going? Or maybe the ones that survive, you ask the child what speed the car was travelling at? It does make you think. Given that very few cars carry any recording device that would establish this information, I wonder who exactly made this number up. I'll say again though, not that I disagree with the 30 limit, it's perfectly appropriate, although over strict enforcement in places with long straight roads or just inside the boundary from the 60 zone doesn't do much to help the safety argument regarding enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 This must be amongst the most heated discussions that I have ever witnessed on this Forum. I find this refreshing, rather than the normal Religious (Muslim)/Political (BNP) discussions. Keep it up ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrywhite Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Spindrift and his eco warrior clan can't accept that speed is not a killer, incompetency is!, usually on the part of pedestrians or the people carrier, Ford Fiesta/Focus or Vauxhall Corsa type driver. 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