Xt500 Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Without getting into semantics (i hope you acknowledge that my perspective on this is not the one-dimensional "stop speeding and you solve the world's problems") speed control is just one end amongst more than a few as far as the authorities are concerned. On some roads speed has been targeted as an end by itself (20 zones, roads where NSL has been replaced by 50) since they authorities believe with reason that speed has played a more than significant part in the crash history. Elsewhere, road position, lack of vision, land drainage, camber, sharp deviation are problems whilst rumble strips and signage, paint, chevrons (not cameras) are the means of achieving different ends. If drivers stopped seeing speed as the only thing authorities are interested in modifying they might see the bigger picture. Maybe if Labour had actually targetted the real cause of problems instead of the one thing that was easy to earn from then drivers may have a different outlook to speed. Millions of occurances of exceeding the speed limit take place every single day without incidence thats not due to luck thats because not every driver is the thickos Labour treat them as. Labour reduced many speed limits to well below the road design speeds and drivers know that.When the speed limits reflect nesesity and not to form a trap they will be more inclined to stick to them. So many drivers cant be wrong can they? I would bet that the slower drivers are invloved in more accidents than the 'speeders' and its not speed which is the cause,its bad attitude dervied from the bull that Labour spouted making the easily led belive good driving is judged by where your speedo points,the inteligent among us know that is far from the truth. Now you have a situation in which the roads are much much more potentially dangerous because of just one factor and it isnt speed its BAD attitude and if you think that isnt the case then you obviously dont use the roads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Millions of occurances of exceeding the speed limit take place every single day without incidence ! Speeding doesn't bother anyone? Wrong: Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown. Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK. Speeding traffic was rated as a significantly greater problem than all other antisocial behaviours, with 43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area. Furthermore, the perception of speeding traffic as the antisocial behaviour of most concern was held by both men and women - young, middle aged, and old. The study's authors, Dr Damian Poulter and Professor Frank McKenna from the University of Reading's Psychology department, replicated the findings in a second survey, which also found that 85% of respondents felt travelling immediately above the speed limit on residential roads was unacceptable behaviour. Professor McKenna said "It would appear that we have greatly underestimated the degree of public concern over speeding. "In comparison to concerns such as intimidation, vandalism, harassment, disruptive neighbours, drunkenness and drugs, speeding is the number one concern." http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR3936.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 You seemed to be asking for proof/evidence that speed cameras have achieved something. Reductions in Derbyshire's PIC's and KSI's at fixed and mobile sites seem to suggest a sort of efficacy. Ah. I see. You just didn't read my posts properly. Your perogative, I guess. No, I wasn't asking for anything. I was pointing out a flaw in Spindrift's argument. That is all. I pointed this out to you at least twice. I also pointed out that I didn't disagree with his position and explained to you why I'd posted in the first place. You didn't read my posts properly and commenced an attempt to prove something to me that you didn't need to. All part of life's rich pageant I suppose, though you might wish to go back and read our exchanges again (carefully this time) to confirm that it is as I say above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 No, I wasn't asking for anything. I was pointing out a flaw in Spindrift's argument. That is all. I pointed this out to you at least twice. . The "flaw" you claim exists is you deny cameras save lives. this flaw only exists if you ignore the pages and pages of evidence I've posted, from worldwide studies, that demonstrate cameras save lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 you deny cameras save lives. Nope. You, too, haven't read my posts properly. I don't deny cameras save lives. I do deny that evidence which shows lower speeds to be safer is not, necessarily, evidence that cameras are effective. That DOES NOT mean that I am claiming cameras are not effective or that they save lives. In your (and now, it seems, DT Ralge's) fervid crusade to get your points across you fail to read posts properly to the extent that, in this case, you mistakenly state that a person who AGREES with you has made a claim which he clearly (to anybody who bothers to read posts properly) hasn't. This weakens your arguments considerably which saddens me. As an aside, I have noticed on numerous threads that you have accused other posters of lying. Since you, yourself have now posted a clear untruth, quoted above, about me, I would be most grateful if you could demonstrate the good grace you seem to expect from others and retract the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The main flaw apparent here is one of reading comprehension and logical deduction. Spindrift knows what conclusion he wants to draw, so getting to that conclusion logically doesn't seem to be a requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The main flaw apparent here is one of reading comprehension and logical deduction. Spindrift knows what conclusion he wants to draw, so getting to that conclusion logically doesn't seem to be a requirement. The main flaw is that some people are hellbent in proving that they are 'right' rather than accepting that this is a discussion forum where people exchange viewpoints as opposed to finding the 'truth'. As i mentioned in a previous post, we could exchange 'facts' until the cows come home. For every piece of 'evidence' there is to support (in this case) cameras, there is 'evidence' that concludes the opposite. The supporters tend to be associations with vested interests in camera use and the opposers are the ones wanting cameras scrapped. Spindrift supports cameras so he will believe every piece of literature supporting cameras and will refuse to entertain anything of the contrary. I drive for a living, i KNOW cameras are mostly pointless and have done far less for road safety than they have earned revenue for the authorities. But some people (usually those who dont drive themselves) are usually the ones who 'know best'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The main flaw is that some people are hellbent in proving that they are 'right' rather than accepting that this is a discussion forum where people exchange viewpoints as opposed to finding the 'truth'. As i mentioned in a previous post, we could exchange 'facts' until the cows come home. For every piece of 'evidence' there is to support (in this case) cameras, there is 'evidence' that concludes the opposite. The supporters tend to be associations with vested interests in camera use and the opposers are the ones wanting cameras scrapped. Spindrift supports cameras so he will believe every piece of literature supporting cameras and will refuse to entertain anything of the contrary. I drive for a living, i KNOW cameras are mostly pointless and have done far less for road safety than they have earned revenue for the authorities. But some people (usually those who dont drive themselves) are usually the ones who 'know best'. It's refreshing to see a balanced view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Ah. I see. You just didn't read my posts properly. Your perogative, I guess. No, I wasn't asking for anything. I was pointing out a flaw in Spindrift's argument. That is all. I pointed this out to you at least twice. I also pointed out that I didn't disagree with his position and explained to you why I'd posted in the first place. You didn't read my posts properly and commenced an attempt to prove something to me that you didn't need to. All part of life's rich pageant I suppose, though you might wish to go back and read our exchanges again (carefully this time) to confirm that it is as I say above. I'll sign off then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Nope. You, too, haven't read my posts properly. I don't deny cameras save lives. I do deny that evidence which shows lower speeds to be safer is not, necessarily, evidence that cameras are effective. That DOES NOT mean that I am claiming cameras are not effective or that they save lives. . Oh, lots of things can slow traffic down, I've never denied that, The Vision Zero scheme in Sweden uses a range of measures, not just cameras. Where there are cameras, accidents decrease. When speeds are slower, accidents decrease. I get the feeling we're singing from the same hymn sheet, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.