Cyclone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 International research demonstrates you are quite wrong: Speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives: Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. An evaluation of their effectiveness in 20052 showed that they were saving around 100 lives a year, and preventing over 1,600 serious injuries. A wide range of UK and international research studies consistently show that cameras are very effective at saving lives.3 Yet weirdly turning them off causes speeding to rise, but not accidents or casualties... How strange. Speed cameras save money: Not only do safety cameras save lives and prevent injury, they also save the public purse many millions of pounds. Apart from their human cost, road accidents are extremely expensive in financial terms. Safety cameras more than pay for themselves, and so from a purely financial point of view, cutting them does not make sense. The four year evaluation of the national safety camera programme estimated that the annual economic benefit of cameras in place at the end of the fourth year was over £258 million, compared with enforcement costs of about £96 million.2 This would be true if they actually reduced accidents, and in accident black spots they probably are effective. Of course that's not where most cameras are actually sited... Cameras are educational, not just punitive: Cameras are an effective way of identifying drivers who would benefit from attending a Speed Awareness Course Yeah, right. Because breaking the limit is down to not being aware of your speed in most cases... Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.Rossi Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Just contest the fine, keep getting the hearing adjourned, just say your really ill. In 2012 the world is going to end. Problem sorted. No it wont, surely not it's the first time we've had the world end on us so we should get off with a warning....:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Spindrift - Speeding in itself is not dangerous and does not necessarily result in "bullying or aggressive behaviour". Actually it does. Anyone on this thread trying to justify speeding is coming across and bullying and aggressive when they try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Actually it does. Anyone on this thread trying to justify speeding is coming across and bullying and aggressive when they try! And no-one else is..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Actually it does. Anyone on this thread trying to justify speeding is coming across and bullying and aggressive when they try! Anyone on this thread trying to justify speed cameras comes across as bullying and aggressive. Which according to your logic means that anyone not speeding when they drive is being bullying and aggressive. Not that anyone is really arguing to justify speeding, this is a misconception that the camera philes like to propagate. Arguing that cameras are not effective in increasing road safety is not an attempt to justify speeding! Much as you'd like it to be. See, anyone can make a ridiculous statement if they like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Possibly, but they've got right on their side of the argument, which is a lot more than those whinging and bleating about their right to speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Possibly, but they've got right on their side of the argument, which is a lot more than those whinging and bleating about their right to speed. And I'll point out again that we were discussing whether cameras are effective in increasing road safety. I haven't seen any try to argue for the right to speed, nor whinge or bleat about it. I've seen the cameraphiles twist desperately in order to try to rephrase anything pointing out why cameras are ineffective into a statement to justify speeding, but desperate twisting doesn't make it so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 But sadly it doesn't stop you making petty point scoring by using silly phrases like "speedophiles" does it? Hardly helps your argument. I simply can't see why its worth arguing about on here. 20 pages on you're still going to be going around in circles, the thread will end up locked, nothing good will come of it, no-one will see the other's point of view and the law won't change. So why bother? Chill out, relax, drive a bit slower (or at the speed limit), you'll still get there at the same time when you factor in traffic lights and such. And who knows, you might be a little less stressed and live longer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Nobody mentioned emptiness. I did mention no footpath, no roads joining it. There's lots of examples of that kind of road, starting with every motorway (although they aren't often empty), followed by many many A-roads, obviously no roads joining applies for a given length only. Where do you think these pedestrians and cyclists were hiding? Up the embankments and behind the tree's at the top? So you can't actually name the road. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Yet weirdly turning them off causes speeding to rise, but not accidents or casualties... How strange. . I've already shown you the report that says it is far too early to tell whether turning off cameras in Oxfordshire has caused accidents to rise. you commented on that post so you must have read it. Why ignore points that erode your argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.