truman Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Have any drivers had a refund? Yes, I think they have.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/5577714/Motorists-to-get-fines-refunded-because-of-sign-blunder.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Hmm was any of that recorded during the five day study then? As has just been posted, the study found an 88% rise in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted August 11, 2010 Author Share Posted August 11, 2010 Hmm was any of that recorded during the five day study then? SF has a short study which seems to bear it out. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550841 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 As has just been posted, the study found an 88% rise in it. SO if speeding is as dangerous as we're led to believe, there will very shortly be an 88% rise in accidents and road fatalities at that sight then, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 SO if speeding is as dangerous as we're led to believe, there will very shortly be an 88% rise in accidents and road fatalities at that sight then, yes? You did not ask about accident and road fatalities. Stick to one point at a time. In any event, speed cameras should not be to prevent accidents. Speed limit signs are to reduce speeding and prevent accidents. Cameras should be for punishing people who ignore the signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 SF has a short study which seems to bear it out. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550841 That's not a study. Even the study referred to wasn't a study. It was a monitor of traffic over 5 days. Apparently we should ignore the fact that Swindon hasn't seen any rise in accidents or fatalities in the 12 months since switching their cameras off, because apparently a year isn't long enough to draw conclusions from. Yet now the boot is on the other foot and a link has been spotted about a 5-day monitoring of traffic, it is immediately lept upon. Hypocrisy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Apparently we should ignore the fact that Swindon hasn't seen any rise in accidents or fatalities in the 12 months since switching their cameras off, because apparently a year isn't long enough to draw conclusions from The logical reasoning for ignoring the Swindon data is that it has barely moved. Random fluctuations could cause a bigger change in the numbers than was seen in that study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 The logical reasoning for ignoring the Swindon data is that it has barely moved. Random fluctuations could cause a bigger change in the numbers than was seen in that study. Yet these "random fluctuations" are seen as a good enough reason for siting cameras..? If the numbers have "barely moved" then what purpose were the cameras serving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 The logical reasoning for ignoring the Swindon data is that it has barely moved. Random fluctuations could cause a bigger change in the numbers than was seen in that study. 365+ days is long enough for any number of random fluctuations, the point is there has not been any fluctuation, don't you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Yet these "random fluctuations" are seen as a good enough reason for siting cameras..? If the numbers have "barely moved" then what purpose were the cameras serving? I've never asked for a reason to site cameras, other than "because they'll catch lawbreakers." That's the only reason that should ever have been required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.