Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Speed limits reduce speeds, reduce accidents and reduce deaths. Look at the Linda Mountain research, the evidence is clear. Those who oppose speed cameras support the increased injury and death rate amongst children. Spouting crap again? Nothing has made our roads more unsafe than the Labour years of its one trick road safety pony. Even Labour could only massage the figures to show speed is the cause of JUST 7% of accidents. You really need to take them blinkers off because there much bigger problems on our roads than a few mph and every driver with at least 2 brain cell knows that. Not only has the speed kills rubbish not made the slightest positive impact on our roads its actually made them worse by altering drivers attutudes far more dangerous. Good driving needs to be judged on far more than where the speedo points but many just dont get it and it looks like your one of them. Many drivers cant even drive in a straight line,maybe you should campain against that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 You miss the point. If the cameras were' date=' as you state, 100% effective (for fifty feet or whatever) then nobody would ever receive a ticket from one.[/quote'] Cameras are history,they didnt work as a road safety tool,all they did was distract drivers from the road while at the same time bunching vehicles.The only success you could attribute to them in an honest way is they were good earners. The roads are a better and safer place with out them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 They're pretty much 100% effective for the fifty feet after the camera! Effective at what?There is no sites that i know of that the accident rate has gone up,yet speeds past turned off cameras has increased.Speaks for itself doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Then you are a speedophile, who is happy to increase child fatalities because you cannot be bothered to leave the house 5 minutes earlier. Speeding drivers pose a significantly higher risk to children than paedophiles do. Speeding drivers kill more children than paedophiles do. There are many 'Groups' of drivers more prone to killing children than 'speeders'. My neighbour cant go out in the car without coming back with another battlescar,thats if she can avoid her wall getting it out. If road safety was really whats Labours interests were (which we know it wasnt) then theres many other things they could have targeted that WOULD have saved lifes but they didnt bother with the other 93% of causes of accidents and we all know why,there was no easy money in it was there? So now labour have gone were stuck with not only holes in our roads but bad attutude as a result of their lies and stat massaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratter71 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 All these stats are boring. As Harry Millhouse (noted GATSO field tech) stated in his book 'Speed - Not For The People', the real problem is having cars that can do 0 - 30mph in 12 secs. He concluded that cars of this ilk, had problems with the drivers. He had a problem with slow cars?? Sub 12 second 0-60 times are the average nowadays. IMO speed is just part of the issue regarding road safety, along with declining driving standards, a modern credit fueled culture where many people go out and buy a car "on the tick" and seem to take less pride/care in their purchase than years ago resulting in a less "carefull" driving method. Also the decline of the tufty club/David Prowse/ SPLINK campaigns, bring em back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 They'd be much more effective if they were all covert. Effective at what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 IMO speed is just part of the issue regarding road safety, along with declining driving standards<...>IMO driver insulation is the main issue regarding road safety. By that, I mean the combination of soundproofing and driving aids, making driving ever more 'uninvolving' (effortless?) Drive at 60 mph in a 15- or even 10 year-old car (assumed in good nick, well-maintained etc.), and there's a good chance you can tell you're driving at 60 mph (or 50, or 70, or...), i.e. your focus/attention/brain/whatever adjusts (heightens) to same, through mechanical/aural feedback. I drive both a 13 year old car and a 5 year old car, and find myself having to check my speedo much more often in the new one than the old one. There's just that much less driver feedback in the new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Spouting crap again? Nothing has made our roads more unsafe than the Labour years of its one trick road safety pony. Even Labour could only massage the figures to show speed is the cause of JUST 7% of accidents. You really need to take them blinkers off because there much bigger problems on our roads than a few mph and every driver with at least 2 brain cell knows that. Not only has the speed kills rubbish not made the slightest positive impact on our roads its actually made them worse by altering drivers attutudes far more dangerous.Good driving needs to be judged on far more than where the speedo points but many just dont get it and it looks like your one of them. Many drivers cant even drive in a straight line,maybe you should campain against that! The number of people killed on British roads last year reached a record low, according to government statistics. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10408417 What was that about spouting crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratter71 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 IMO driver insulation is the main issue regarding road safety. By that, I mean the combination of soundproofing and driving aids, making driving ever more 'uninvolving' (effortless?) Drive at 60 mph in a 15- or even 10 year-old car (assumed in good nick, well-maintained etc.), and there's a good chance you can tell you're driving at 60 mph (or 50, or 70, or...), i.e. your focus/attention/brain/whatever adjusts (heightens) to same, through mechanical/aural feedback. I drive both a 13 year old car and a 5 year old car, and find myself having to check my speedo much more often in the new one than the old one. There's just that much less driver feedback in the new one. I fully agree with this, we have a 5 year old, 12 year old and a 40 year old car, the differences in driver feedback are amazing (as you would expect, really). The 40y/o demands attention and driver awareness of road conditions etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 The number of people killed on British roads last year reached a record low, according to government statistics. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10408417 What was that about spouting crap? And that's after Oxfordshire and Swindon turned their cameras off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.