Lockjaw Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Name them. Cite the research. Like this: Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of: — Total accidents -56 per cent — Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent — Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent — All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent — Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm Whilst I believe nobody with a modicum of spatial awareness and reasoning ability could disagree that lower speeds will reduce the frequency and severity of accidents, I feel that you reduce the credibility of your arguments by providing data regarding speed limits as evidence for the effectiveness of speed cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Whilst I believe nobody with a modicum of spatial awareness and reasoning ability could disagree that lower speeds will reduce the frequency and severity of accidents' date=' I feel that you reduce the credibility of your arguments by providing data regarding [i']speed limits[/i] as evidence for the effectiveness of speed cameras. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 However the death caused by a paedophile is far more traumatic and horrific. Not sure why you are bringing paedophiles in to the discussion to be honest, unless it's to try and make speeders seem worse. . In purely statistical terms, speedophiles kill more children than paedophiles. This is a fact, it doesn't make me a "moron", althopugh your inability to respond without abuse is noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw 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. Why not read my post and try again? Hint: your third sentence doesn't logically follow your first two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone 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. Are you trying to claim that speed cameras are an effective way of enforcing the speed limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Are you trying to claim that speed cameras are an effective way of enforcing the speed limit? They're pretty much 100% effective for the fifty feet after the camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 They're pretty much 100% effective for the fifty feet after the camera! Then why do so many people end up with points from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Because they're blind and deserve all they get if they can't see a camera or drive to the limits as required by the driving test? Like the old transport minister Ladyman said on Top Gear a few years ago "We paint them yellow, we put up signs, we even publish on the internet where they are. If you still get caught then its your own fault!" There really is no excuse. Why do people feel its ok to not drive to the standard required when they got their licence? Either drive to the limits or take it on the chin when you get caught and subsequently lectured to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Because they're blind and deserve all they get if they can't see a camera or drive to the limits as required by the driving test? Like the old transport minister Ladyman said on Top Gear a few years ago "We paint them yellow, we put up signs, we even publish on the internet where they are. If you still get caught then its your own fault!" There really is no excuse. Why do people feel its ok to not drive to the standard required when they got their licence? Either drive to the limits or take it on the chin when you get caught and subsequently lectured to. You miss the point. If the cameras were, as you state, 100% effective (for fifty feet or whatever) then nobody would ever receive a ticket from one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed 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'] They'd be much more effective if they were all covert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.