spindrift Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 More on Swindon: Yet the conspiracists in the Sun, the Express and the Daily Mail, on Top Gear and throughout cyberspace, insist that speed cameras exist only to tax and control us. They point to the example of Swindon, the first place in Britain in which the cameras were shut down, at the behest of a Conservative council. In the year before they were switched off, there was one death and eight minor accidents at the camera sites; in the year after, there were no deaths, two serious accidents and seven minor ones. "These figures," the council's leader, Rod Bluh maintains, "completely vindicate our position. They show that "fixed speed cameras are more about fundraising than road safety". In reality they vindicate the proposition that he is innumerate, as they fail all tests of statistical significance. A study conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership, across the whole county over three years, found that after speed cameras were installed there was a reduction at those sites in deaths and serious injuries of 69%. Bluh's hostility to the cameras might have more to do with the fact that he was banned for speeding. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/26/evidence-real-war-motorists-look-mortuary There is and has never been a war on the motorist. Motorists are handled more gently than anyone else: they are the only people who can expect to get away with breaking the law on almost all occasions. A war is an event in which people are injured and killed. Which circumstance most closely resembles one: an occasional £60 fine, or the daily carnage on the roads? You can see the victims of the real war that's being waged – the war against road safety – in every hospital and mortuary up and down the land. Seven killed, 71 seriously injured, every day. About 120 children killed in Britain every year: 120 families plunged into lifelong grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I really don't understand why people get so angry and upset about speed cameras. Its just like the security guard on the door of a major store - if you're not up to anything bad, surely there's nothing to be bothered about? Is it really that hard to drive to the standards expected of you when you applied for your driving licence? Why is it that when you have got your licence you feel you can ignore the rules of the road and drive how you like? Can you imagine a doctor spending years studying for their PhD and then not bothering to scrub up before an operation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Is it really that hard to drive to the standards expected of you when you applied for your driving licence? Why is it that when you have got your licence you feel you can ignore the rules of the road and drive how you like? I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Think you've missed the OP's point. For example......Would you criticise someone for having no Road Tax, Insurance, maybe someone who drinks and drives? Now that's hypocrisy. I don't think I've missed it at all, although I'll go back and read it again. I think you've misunderstood (or not read) the story in the media that was referred to. Yep, checked it. I've understood it fine. Speeding motorists are hypocrites guilty of “middle class anti-social behaviour” who believe they can get away with breaking the law ... [she]...says drivers consider speeding as acceptable and change their minds only if they lose a child in a road accident. That's the hypocrisy in question, 'middle class drivers' (apparently) who speed, but condemn others for the same behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I really don't understand why people get so angry and upset about speed cameras. Its just like the security guard on the door of a major store - if you're not up to anything bad, surely there's nothing to be bothered about? Is it really that hard to drive to the standards expected of you when you applied for your driving licence? Why is it that when you have got your licence you feel you can ignore the rules of the road and drive how you like? Can you imagine a doctor spending years studying for their PhD and then not bothering to scrub up before an operation? Is it really anything like that at all? Or is it more like having a police officer waiting to catch someone who walks on the grass despite the sign saying not to? Ie a disproportionate level of enforcement for the severity of the infringement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Violently off at a tangent from this thread, perhaps, but with our fine system not means-tested in any way, have a look at this: http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/12082010/36/swedish-driver-gets-pound-650-000-speeding-fine-0.html Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I don't think I've missed it at all, although I'll go back and read it again. I think you've misunderstood (or not read) the story in the media that was referred to. Yep, checked it. I've understood it fine. That's the hypocrisy in question, 'middle class drivers' (apparently) who speed, but condemn others for the same behaviour. “People think we should be able to get away with it. They wouldn’t tolerate lawbreaking by somebody else but they do it themselves without thinking". Please note the 'Lawbreaking' So given your lack of criticism for fellow speeders, would you criticise someone for having no insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 So given your lack of criticism for fellow speeders, would you criticise someone for having no insurance? I criticise people for not following the Highway Code - uninsured or untaxed should be banned along with drunk drivers or drugged drivers. The fact is we all accept certain infringements which we personally think are over policed and we all critices those we don't agree with, it's human nature, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 “People think we should be able to get away with it. They wouldn’t tolerate lawbreaking by somebody else but they do it themselves without thinking". Please note the 'Lawbreaking' So given your lack of criticism for fellow speeders, would you criticise someone for having no insurance? Yes, but there's no hypocrisy in that, unless it's hypocritical to believe that some laws are more important than others and that enforcing some is more important than enforcing others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Yes, but there's no hypocrisy in that, unless it's hypocritical to believe that some laws are more important than others and that enforcing some is more important than enforcing others. Condoning lawbreaking i.e Speeding (which you admit to doing) while advocating the enforcement of other traffic laws i.e No Insurance (which I assume you don't do). That pretty much makes you a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.