Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 There doesn't have to be an accident for speeding to anti-social. Speeding scares the elderly, terrifies children, bullies vulnerable road users, intimidates cyclists, and annoys residents. Are you the elderly it scares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Are you the elderly it scares? A golden comedy moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 A golden comedy moment. I hope you didnt fall off your window sill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Authorities 'To Reactivate The Technology'03/11/2010 A serious injury lawyer at Irwin Mitchell has welcomed reports that fixed speed cameras are to be brought back into use in Oxfordshire. Stephen Nye, who specialises in cases related to road traffic accidents, said it was positive news that the region’s council are reportedly planning to go back on a decision taken in August to switch off the cameras. The decision to deactivate them was taken when Oxfordshire County Council withdrew funding for the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership. However, both parties have now confirmed they are close to agreeing a deal which will ensure the technology is in use. Commenting on the plan, Stephen Nye said: “There is no doubt that speed cameras play a key role in both preventing injuries and saving lives, so it is welcome news that the technology is set to be brought back into use. “So many of the cases I deal with highlight the traumatic, life-changing impact that road traffic accidents can have on those involved. “Because of this, it is vital that any measures designed to improve road safety and protect the wellbeing of drivers are taken advantage of.” http://www.irwinmitchell.com/news/Pages/Oxfordshire-Speed-Camera-Return-Backed-By-Accident-Expert.aspx Thats not what your putting forward as proof is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Speeds that TRL323’s methodology wouldn’t even record. No link, that's not like you. As it happens I'm not a camera hater, I just don't believe they have any significant effect. I do believe that the concentration on speed to the detriment of all other offences has increased the risk of accidents. You only have to drive anywhere at night to see people who drive with sidelights + foglights, but no main beam. 20% of the cars I see have one or more lights completely broken and a sizeable proportion are simply unable to drive in a straight line or stay in lane. Then there's tailgating, cutting people up and general reckless driving. None of these people will ever be stopped by the police unless they also happen to be speeding. I have no doubt that excessive speed is dangerous, but not to the extent that it is the only factor and the only one that is policed, as is the situation we have at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I wonder if the people that support cameras are the people that they are there to protect us from. After all any Comptetent driver will know that you dont need a speedo to know you are driving safe nor is the speedo an indication of safe driving although it seems that some now think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 This makes for an interesting read.... Taken from... http://www.statistics.gov.uk In 2007, 646 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain; this was 22 per cent of all deaths from road accidents, a 78 per cent decrease from 40 years ago when pedestrian fatalities were 2,964. The total number of deaths in road accidents fell by 7 per cent to 2,946 in 2007 from 3,172 in 2006. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years. Nearly half (49 per cent) of people killed in road accidents were car users in 2007. Pedal cyclists and motor cyclists represented 5 and 20 per cent of those killed respectively. Occupants of buses, coaches, goods and other vehicles accounted for the remaining 5 per cent of road deaths. The total number of road casualties of all severities fell by 4 per cent between 2006 and 2007 to approximately 248,000 in Great Britain. This compares with an annual average of approximately 320,000 for the years 1994-98. The decline in the casualty rate, which takes into account the volume of traffic on the roads, has been much steeper. In 1967 there were 199 casualties per 100 million vehicle kilometres. By 2007 this had declined to 48 per 100 million vehicle kilometres. The UK has a good record for road safety compared with most other EU countries. In 2006 it had one of the lowest road death rates in the EU, at 5.4 per 100,000 population. The UK rate was also lower than the rates for other industrialised nations such as the United States (14.3 per 100,000 population), Australia (7.8 per 100,000 population) and Japan (5.7 per 100,000 population). Given that some people like reports from 'reputable sources'.. i feel that this Gov link about tops the list. I especially like the sentence "However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years.".. Bearing that in mind, if we now take a look at this Telegraph article which lists the number of Safety Cameras in Britain between 2001-2007 as 1,672 in 2001 and up to 4,737 in 2007. Link Both articles (one a government statistic report) kind of rains on the parade of the argument that 'Safety Cameras save lives'. Put simply, between 2001 and 2007, Safety cameras rose by 3065 while (according to the governments own words) "The number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years." Make of that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Make of that what you will. I make of it your complete disregard for traffic growth, the use of mobile phones and any number of other external factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I make of it your complete disregard for traffic growth, the use of mobile phones and any number of other external factors. Jeez ,have you run out of crap to paste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I make of it your complete disregard for traffic growth, the use of mobile phones and any number of other external factors. Read the link. Paragraph 5 The decline in the casualty rate, which takes into account the volume of traffic on the roads, has been much steeper. Besides which... can you hear yourself? These reports illustrates that despite the increase in the volume of traffic (plus the obvious increase in mobile phone use etc during this same period) and the huge increase in Safety cameras during the period, the roads are no more dangerous now (or safer) than they were 10 years ago without the country being littered with these yellow cash cows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.