"Scrap speed cameras now"- PS in the Telegraph

CometGirl · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by _Bonj_

All largely regionalised things done by local women's coffee mornings.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And you feel entitled to ride roughshod over their views because they're local, or because they're women?

One of the aspects of speeding is that it intimidates local people - the elderly, the very young, people who have to cross busy roads. A perception of fear can be very unpleasant and antisocial.

The Endorser · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Apology accepted with a lacrity, whatever a lacrity is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">it's a type of breastmilk!

Eating baby elephants since 1969

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by _Bonj_

All largely regionalised things done by local women's coffee mornings.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And you feel entitled to ride roughshod over their views because they're local, or because they're women?

.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Go on Bonj - tell cometgirl that it's because they're women. [:p]

rothbook · June 2007

Comments are up!:

What a load of rubbish - how can you publish this kind of guff without giving some comment. This is just opinionated claptrap, no evidence, just trying to stir up trouble. Of course it will appeal to those who let the car control them instead of the reverse. This writer should be made to attend road traffic accidents with the ambulance service until he can see the error of his ways. Of course it is the driver, not speed itself which is the problem- you only have to walk the roads any housing estate to see car drivers using mobile phones, speeding, feeding kids, badly parking, jumping traffic signals ,pub car parks full ,etc. But-until these people can learn to control themselves, a camera system is one of the best ways to identify these culprits.
Posted by r sharp on June 23, 2007 4:46 PM
Report this comment

This guy is a complete fruitcake! Why on earth are the DT giving him space? His views don't seem to be based on any evidence whatsoever and patronise the intelligence of the average motorist. I'm a motorist and would like to see many more cameras to deter speeding - speeding drivers are a menace and a danger to all of us. And so are Smith's views.
Posted by Keith Hemmings on June 23, 2007 7:47 PM

What a jaundiced view this man has. The answer isn't to stop the Police looking for rapists and murderers, so they can educate drivers. The correct application of technology has got to be the best way to manage the millions of car journeys that take place every day.
Posted by Annette Klass on June 23, 2007 9:24 AM

Oh good grief, not ____ _______. The man who's drawn loads on interesting graphs on his website that "prove" that speed cameras kill people. What qualifications does this chap have again?
Posted by Lucy Benjamin on June 23, 2007 8:53 PM

_Bonj_ · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> No, but it's what the public want. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Wrong again:

Three Year Review9
This Review of cameras in 24 areas over a three year period found they significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40%.

The Public's View of Speed Cameras

The Safety Camera Partnerships commission surveys in their areas to assess the public's views about cameras.

The level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that 'the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties'.

From the public attitude surveys there is strong evidence that there is overall positive support for the use of cameras and this stemmed from the belief that the cameras were in place to save lives - 71% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives.4

Surveys conducted in the 8 pilot areas8 had previously found that:

70% of people agreed that "fewer accidents are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed".
67% of people agreed that "Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught"
40% of people agreed that "Cameras are an easy way of making money out of motorists"
82% of people agreed that "Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them"

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/ ... ameras.htm

Got any survey results that DON'T support cameras?

Stop posting silly lies banjo, it clogs the board up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It's laughable that you post statistics published by the safety camera partnership, as they are the exact people whose jobs depend on speed cameras - so they are hardly likely to be unbiased are they. They know exactly how to massage statistics and use selective reporting of them in order to project the view that coincides with theirs. Did they ask the question "Do you want to see more speed cameras, or fewer?" No, exactly. They've carefully phrased the questions such that the answers will appear to agree with their single-issue agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd done several surveys in far more than just "8 pilot areas" in order that they can cherry-pick the best looking sets of stats.

_Bonj_ · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by _Bonj_

All largely regionalised things done by local women's coffee mornings.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And you feel entitled to ride roughshod over their views because they're local, or because they're women?

One of the aspects of speeding is that it intimidates local people - the elderly, the very young, people who have to cross busy roads. A perception of fear can be very unpleasant and antisocial.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What does "riding roughshod" involve? I'm just expressing my views which are that I just don't like the fact that the innocent motorist gets repeatedly milked while ASBO chav boy runs riot with no risk of punishment. It's a farce.

rothbook · June 2007

ROSPA has nothing to do with road safety partnerships and the survey was independent.

Wrong again.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I'm just expressing my views which are that I just don't like the fact that the innocent motorist gets repeatedly milked <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Innocent drivers have nothing to worry about.

_Bonj_ · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

ROSPA has nothing to do with road safety partnerships and the survey was independent.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And? It was you who posted

"The Safety Camera Partnerships commission surveys in their areas to assess the public's views about cameras.

The level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that 'the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties'."

It's you who's wrong.

_Bonj_ · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Comments are up!:

What a load of rubbish - how can you publish this kind of guff without giving some comment. This is just opinionated claptrap, no evidence, just trying to stir up trouble. Of course it will appeal to those who let the car control them instead of the reverse. This writer should be made to attend road traffic accidents with the ambulance service until he can see the error of his ways. Of course it is the driver, not speed itself which is the problem- you only have to walk the roads any housing estate to see car drivers using mobile phones, speeding, feeding kids, badly parking, jumping traffic signals ,pub car parks full ,etc. But-until these people can learn to control themselves, a camera system is one of the best ways to identify these culprits.
Posted by r sharp on June 23, 2007 4:46 PM
Report this comment

This guy is a complete fruitcake! Why on earth are the DT giving him space? His views don't seem to be based on any evidence whatsoever and patronise the intelligence of the average motorist. I'm a motorist and would like to see many more cameras to deter speeding - speeding drivers are a menace and a danger to all of us. And so are Smith's views.
Posted by Keith Hemmings on June 23, 2007 7:47 PM

What a jaundiced view this man has. The answer isn't to stop the Police looking for rapists and murderers, so they can educate drivers. The correct application of technology has got to be the best way to manage the millions of car journeys that take place every day.
Posted by Annette Klass on June 23, 2007 9:24 AM

Oh good grief, not ____ _______. The man who's drawn loads on interesting graphs on his website that "prove" that speed cameras kill people. What qualifications does this chap have again?
Posted by Lucy Benjamin on June 23, 2007 8:53 PM

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I see you've been on the Daily Telegraph website, signed up as several different people and posted a load of comments.

rothbook · June 2007

Previous Research

The first speed cameras in Great Britain were installed in West London in 1992. In the first three years of operation,6 at the camera sites they:

Reduced the number of people killed by 70%
Reduced the number of people seriously injured by 27%
Reduced the number of people slightly injured by 8%.
A 1996 study7 found that speed cameras reduced casualties by about 28%.

Initial Evaluation of the Netting Off Pilot Schemes8

An evaluation of the 8 pilot areas of the 'Netting-off' scheme over the first two years of their operation found that, on average, the:

Percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit fell from 47% to 20%.

Percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph fell from 7.4% to 0.3%.

Average speeds at the camera sites fell by 10% (3.7mph).
35% fewer people were killed and seriously injured (this meant that about 280 fewer people were killed or seriously injured).

There was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured at camera sites.

There were 14% (about 510) fewer crashes.
Three Year Review9
This Review of cameras in 24 areas over a three year period found they significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40%.

The Public's View of Speed Cameras

The Safety Camera Partnerships commission surveys in their areas to assess the public's views about cameras.

The level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that 'the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties'.

From the public attitude surveys there is strong evidence that there is overall positive support for the use of cameras and this stemmed from the belief that the cameras were in place to save lives - 71% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives.4

Surveys conducted in the 8 pilot areas8 had previously found that:

1 "New Directions in Speed Management: A Review of Policy", DETR, 2000
2 "Road Casualties Great Britain, 2004: The Casualty Report", DfT, 2004
3 " Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain: 2003, DfT, 2004
4 "Safety Camera Announcement - Written Statement, Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Transport, December 2005

5 "The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report" by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005
6 "West London Speed Camera Demonstration Project", Highways Agency, 1997
7 "Cost Benefit Analysis of Traffic Light and Speed Cameras", Police Research Group, 1995
8 "A Cost Recovery System for Speed and Red Light Cameras, Two Year Pilot Evaluation", DfT, 2003

9"The National Safety Camera Programme: Three-year Evaluation Report" by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, June 2004

No Safety Camera Partnerships mentioned there.

Independent surveys.

You're wrong, deal with it.

_Bonj_ · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

No Safety Camera Partnerships mentioned there.

Independent surveys.

You're wrong, deal with it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Only because you edited them out, in the same way as you 'edited' the BBC's report in the thread about 'driver accepts he was driving too fast' to make for a better title.

You've simply come across a pro-speed camera website and have just taken to copying and pasting huge swathes of it onto here, it's just that the first time you were left with egg on your face when you forgot to remove references to sources with obvious bias.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Only because you edited them out, in the same way as you 'edited' the BBC's report in the thread about 'driver accepts he was driving too fast' to make for a better title.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The links are still there.

You claimed that any research comissioned by the SCP is biased. When I posted independent research that proves cameras work you ignore it.

At the inquest, North-East Wales coroner John Hughes asked Mr Harris if he had been going too fast for the conditions.

"Very possibly," Mr Harris replied.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6226498.stm

Your lies are amusing banjo, keep it up.

The Endorser · June 2007

the thing that gets me is this - the authorities post the camera locations on their websites, print them in the local newspapers, announce them on the local radio and then paint the blasted things dayglo reflective yellow, and people are still so unobservant that they manage to ping one, then have the cheek to moan about the injustice of it all. Hell, i'f you couldn't see a 9 feet tall Gatso in fetching yellow, how would you spot a 6 feet tall pedestrian in dark clothing?

They should get a life, pay the fine, and learn from the experience.

Eating baby elephants since 1969

Ian Loveday · June 2007

I am seeking funding for a research project. I have good reason to believe that the carbon footprint of safespeed threads is a threat to the future of humanity. with each new thread sea levels rise. The rise in sea level seems to be affecting the stocks of dung beetles in sheffield which must be a worry to bonj.

please e-mail any donations

www.sheffieldphoenix.org.uk

rothbook · June 2007

Wot endorser said.

Jaded · June 2007

Come off it, The Endorser,

Pedestrians shouldn't be anywhere near roads. They should be in cars or at home. If they are outside their home and not in a car they should be dressed head to foot in dayglo yellow, and be wearing a proximity detector that alerts any motorists within 500mtrs that they have permission to kill the idiot.

We mustn't allow anything to get in the way of a motorist or his desire to travel at a speed that will give him a hard-on.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

The Endorser · June 2007

You're right - Gordon Blair wants us all the remaining smokers to undertake a full written risk assesment and don a hard hat before sparking up. I would call it the nanny tate, but my nanny was actually pretty cool.

Eating baby elephants since 1969

Bobby Lightcycles · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by _Bonj_

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Comments are up!:

What a load of rubbish - how can you publish this kind of guff without giving some comment. This is just opinionated claptrap, no evidence, just trying to stir up trouble. Of course it will appeal to those who let the car control them instead of the reverse. This writer should be made to attend road traffic accidents with the ambulance service until he can see the error of his ways. Of course it is the driver, not speed itself which is the problem- you only have to walk the roads any housing estate to see car drivers using mobile phones, speeding, feeding kids, badly parking, jumping traffic signals ,pub car parks full ,etc. But-until these people can learn to control themselves, a camera system is one of the best ways to identify these culprits.
Posted by r sharp on June 23, 2007 4:46 PM
Report this comment

This guy is a complete fruitcake! Why on earth are the DT giving him space? His views don't seem to be based on any evidence whatsoever and patronise the intelligence of the average motorist. I'm a motorist and would like to see many more cameras to deter speeding - speeding drivers are a menace and a danger to all of us. And so are Smith's views.
Posted by Keith Hemmings on June 23, 2007 7:47 PM

What a jaundiced view this man has. The answer isn't to stop the Police looking for rapists and murderers, so they can educate drivers. The correct application of technology has got to be the best way to manage the millions of car journeys that take place every day.
Posted by Annette Klass on June 23, 2007 9:24 AM

Oh good grief, not ____ _______. The man who's drawn loads on interesting graphs on his website that "prove" that speed cameras kill people. What qualifications does this chap have again?
Posted by Lucy Benjamin on June 23, 2007 8:53 PM

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I see you've been on the Daily Telegraph website, signed up as several different people and posted a load of comments.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sad isn't it? Yet so predictable for someone with a pathological obsession with Paul Smith. And just as predictable that he then cherry-picks those comments, when anyone actually visiting the page can see that anti-camera comments outnumber them by at least 10 to 1. So much for the public supporting cameras. Every time there's an online news article, the people fed up with the persecution of the motorist are by far the most in evidence. Ditto every time there's an unbiased online poll like "Are you in favour of speed cameras?" It's only when the scamera partnerships ask their biased, salary-protecting questions that we get the illusion that the public are anything like in favour of the unhelpful devices.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> anyone actually visiting the page can see that anti-camera comments outnumber them by at least 10 to 1. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ha!

Want to count again?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Ditto every time there's an unbiased online poll like "Are you in favour of speed cameras?" <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And your evidence for this is....?

Cue disappearance of bobby.

Bobby Lightcycles · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Ditto every time there's an unbiased online poll like "Are you in favour of speed cameras?" <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And your evidence for this is....?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Got any survey results that DON'T support cameras?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
http://www.eveningleader.co.uk/speakout ... id=2975912

And "yes" has "jumped" from 9% to 22% in a few hours. So even with obvious cheating, the public support for the SS viewpoint cannot be covered up.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Cue disappearance of bobby.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No. I actually answer people's questions, unlike you. And I don't keep re-registering with different avatars either.

How long have you had your problems?

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Ah, yes... nothing like the unbiased evidence of a self-selecting web poll now is there?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> And "yes" has "jumped" from 9% to 22% in a few hours. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Survey, I said, not a newspaper online poll.

Getting desperate are we?

_Bonj_ · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Bobby Lightcycles

Sad isn't it? Yet so predictable for someone with a pathological obsession with Paul Smith. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, it is sad - but it's not just him. The 'Campaign' forum should be aptly renamed 'SafeSpeed', because that's what most of the topics are about. It is an unhealthy obsession.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> No. I actually answer people's questions, unlike you. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Garbage, you've ignored every question of mine you have no answer for.

Let's stick to one for the time being, wanna tell me what prosecutions I face for daring to disagree with your muppet leader's beer-mat scribbles?

LOL!!

rothbook · June 2007

Do you think Brunstrom's speed camera campaign has helped make our roads safer?

48% Yes - they are vital in helping reduce road deaths

47% No - they are just a way of making money

5% They have helped but they are not the main reason

http://www.eveningleader.co.uk/viewarti ... id=2975912

Good link there Bobby!

LOL!!

_Bonj_ · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Do you think Brunstrom's speed camera campaign has helped make our roads safer?

48% Yes - they are vital in helping reduce road deaths

47% No - they are just a way of making money

5% They have helped but they are not the main reason

http://www.eveningleader.co.uk/viewarti ... id=2975912

Good link there Bobby!

LOL!!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I thought it was "only" a newspaper poll, not a proper survey... or is it suddenly valid when it appears to be saying what you want it to say? Which it's not, really - if almost as many people think they're a revenue generator as think they're an important safety feature it doesn't exactly bolster your image that the public like them.

rothbook · June 2007

So bobby lied about the source and then lied about the result.

Bobby, meet banjo, I just know you guys are gonna get along just fine.

Bobby Lightcycles · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Do you think Brunstrom's speed camera campaign has helped make our roads safer?

48% Yes - they are vital in helping reduce road deaths

47% No - they are just a way of making money

5% They have helped but they are not the main reason

http://www.eveningleader.co.uk/viewarti ... id=2975912

Good link there Bobby!

LOL!!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
As I said: cheating. You can't get the public to agree with you, so you try to make it appear that way instead. Exactly like the scameraships. Have you considered taking a job as a scameraship manager (if you're not one already)? I think you'd be exactly what they were looking for. No integrity, sanity or wish to save lives required.

And I think if you looked through the relevant threads then you would see that you have evaded far more questions than I have. But, regarding the prosecutions, I am not entitled to comment any further in a public forum.

Now my turn: why did you pretend on PH that you weren't Spindrift? What's wrong with telling people who you are?

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> But, regarding the prosecutions, I am not entitled to comment any further in a public forum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Guffaw.

"Scrap speed cameras now"- PS in the Telegraph

Comments

Categories