The anti-speed camera lobby receives a major blow!
12-10-2003, 07:02 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 7,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The anti-speed camera lobby receives a major blow!
The anti-speed camera lobby receives a major blow!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3305719.stm
Dissappointing coincidense that the accident rate has risen in Durham... What will the anti-speed lobby make of this. Paul Garvin is the sole leader of the anti-speed camera lobby and this not good news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3305719.stm
Dissappointing coincidense that the accident rate has risen in Durham... What will the anti-speed lobby make of this. Paul Garvin is the sole leader of the anti-speed camera lobby and this not good news.
12-10-2003, 07:31 AM
#2
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 7,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also just noticed an article in AutoCar that shows that 6000 motorcyclists are killed or injured every year in accidents caused by diesel spills. This year 360 riders have been killed up from 288 in 2002.
What is the government doing about it? F**k all
What is the government doing about it? F**k all
12-10-2003, 07:34 AM
#3
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: ...by a lake...somewhere
Posts: 29,526
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
What difference does it make?
They had no cameras last year - they have none now, so how can the cameras be even in this discussion? The deaths have increased but the camera cannot be used as a datum. There wasn`t any then, there isn`t any now - so no conclusions can be drawn from this rise in fatalities.
These are pointless stats.
They had no cameras last year - they have none now, so how can the cameras be even in this discussion? The deaths have increased but the camera cannot be used as a datum. There wasn`t any then, there isn`t any now - so no conclusions can be drawn from this rise in fatalities.
These are pointless stats.
12-10-2003, 08:17 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North Yorks
Posts: 10,979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree - lies damn lies and statistics.
If cameras were as effective at preventing death as they claim, the UK road system would be a far safer place than it is.
Overall, the general trend since 1993 (when cameras were starting to be used) has been upward, not the dramatic downward trend they keep trying to convince us cameras will bring.
This is quite a good article. It refutes pretty much all the government claims for cameras by turning the statistics back on themselves.
If cameras were as effective at preventing death as they claim, the UK road system would be a far safer place than it is.
Overall, the general trend since 1993 (when cameras were starting to be used) has been upward, not the dramatic downward trend they keep trying to convince us cameras will bring.
This is quite a good article. It refutes pretty much all the government claims for cameras by turning the statistics back on themselves.
12-10-2003, 08:38 AM
#5
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: City Of London / Knebworth
Posts: 39,547
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
Originally posted by moff
What is the government doing about it? F**k all
What is the government doing about it? F**k all
12-10-2003, 08:39 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leamington Spa
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anything these camera's can also cause accidents.
How many of us are guilty of spending most of their time glancing down at the speedo .
rather than the road in front when there are camera's about?
I also note the general reaction of drivers to slam on the brakes and look down at their speedo when they see a so called "safety vehicle". By which time if they were going too fast its probably too late anyway.
Stanza.
How many of us are guilty of spending most of their time glancing down at the speedo .
rather than the road in front when there are camera's about? I also note the general reaction of drivers to slam on the brakes and look down at their speedo when they see a so called "safety vehicle". By which time if they were going too fast its probably too late anyway.
Stanza.
12-10-2003, 09:15 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 8,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with all the above.Trying to look on the bright side, though, you stand far more of a chance of avoiding a conviction from a Gatso speed camera than you do from a hand-held gun, which this force employs instead...
...providing you've got a decent detector, of course.
Trending Topics
12-10-2003, 09:18 AM
#8
Originally posted by moff
I have also just noticed an article in AutoCar that shows that 6000 motorcyclists are killed or injured every year in accidents caused by diesel spills. This year 360 riders have been killed up from 288 in 2002.
I have also just noticed an article in AutoCar that shows that 6000 motorcyclists are killed or injured every year in accidents caused by diesel spills. This year 360 riders have been killed up from 288 in 2002.
12-10-2003, 09:49 AM
#9
I know that maths are not taught in the YUK, but exactly how thick do these people think we are?
What is the causality between the presence of speed cameras and dozy brats not running into the road?
That is not damned lies, Plod must be on acid!
What is the causality between the presence of speed cameras and dozy brats not running into the road?
That is not damned lies, Plod must be on acid!
