convert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Well done, you got the point. The point being that the OP (and the article she cites) has chosen to cherry-pick and no conclusions can be drawn from the information provided. I thought the "Statistics eh, wonder why that wasn't in the report. " was fairly obvious sarcasm tbh. Sorry , but I don't agree. We can't draw the conclusion that all speed cameras are cash cows, but we can safely (sic) say that some cameras have not reduced accidents, but have caused an increase in them. I'm all for speed cameras in the right areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 As noted on your other thread, there is no DoT report. All they have released is the raw statistics, which also show falling accidents in other areas. edit: in fact, the DoT haven't even released the statistics, they have been released by local councils. "The speed camera lobby has long-denied that they are cunning money-spinners, designed as cash cows to milk the motorist. They have been sticking by their story that they are safety devices designed to avoid accidents. The trouble is that figures released by the Department for Transport have revealed that they do precisely the opposite. The statistics revealed what motorist have long-suspected: the cameras do very little of any use. They don't actually cut accident rates when they are erected. The only thing they can be definitely proven to do in every case is raise revenue for the government." Which part of this do you not understand? Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Your own statement says you cannot prove that accidents have increased because of cameras: Surely,using the same logic,it can't be proved that accidents have decreased on certain sites because of the cameras then?...Maybe a regression to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 They should never have been referred to as "safety cameras" in the first place, if only the government had possessed guts enough to stand up to the road lobby. The speed limit signs have the job of ensuring safety, by setting a speed limit. The job of the cameras is to catch people who ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 They should never have been referred to as "safety cameras" in the first place, if only the government had possessed guts enough to stand up to the road lobby. The speed limit signs have the job of ensuring safety, by setting a speed limit. The job of the cameras is to catch people who ignore it. ..you're confusing speed with safety..30mph is not neecessarily safe,just as 90mph is not necessarily dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 ..you're confusing speed with safety..30mph is not neecessarily safe,just as 90mph is not necessarily dangerous It's a fairly reliable bet that 90mph is dangerous outside a school... ...But in any event, that's the whole point. This argument should be about where the limit should be set. Nobody in their right mind would argue that people should be entitled to break the law and that catching them is a bad thing - yet, when it comes to speeding laws, many people are not in their right mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I like to think of them in a similar vein to cameras in a supermarket. For the majority they go unnoticed. For others with a specific agenda they become an occupational hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It's a fairly reliable bet that 90mph is dangerous outside a school... . At 3 o'clock in the morning? Just saying that there's more to safety than speed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 At 3 o'clock in the morning? Just saying that there's more to safety than speed... Hence the rest of my post, which you seem to have ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickeyLove Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I've always thought they were a bit of a cash cow. To be honest I've been done 3 times over the years. 180 in fines and 9 points, which increased my insurance premiums. I was doing 18 mph over the speed limit. 3 x 6 mph over the limit. So I'm no boy racer. It was my own fault because they are the rules. However, if the rules are introduced under false pretences then they should be changed. I don't know how they can reduce accidents any more than other measures. If there is a school or some other risk there are many more options to reduce speed, without cost to the hard pressed motorists. We are consistently ripped off in this country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.