by AitkenBrotherston
on July 02, 2010 at 02:47PM
There undoubtedly are many laws on the statute book that need drastic revision or outright repeal and it is to the credit of the present government that these are being examined.
Of course there are also laws that are perfectly reasonable if they are used properly for the purpose for which they were intended but are being abused for purposes other than that intended. The anti-terrorism legislation is a well recognised example of how a law intended for one purpose has been corrupted for use for other objectives. Another example that touches a very large number of people in the UK is the way in which road traffic laws, particularly speed regulation, are being abused. One might forgive an element of abuse if the objective of improving road safety was being achieved but unfortunately there is a plethora of data to demonstrate that the very opposite is the actual situation. The law is being routinely abused and corrupted by those who should be upholding it and to add insult to injury it is being abused to the detriment of road safety.
Motoring cases are, for the most part, subject to summary trial. Of course the whole basis of the summary trial is contrary to one of the basic precepts of our legal system which demands that the accused is tried by a jury of his peers. But, important as it is, I shall leaving that aside for now.
One of the basic safeguards to try to ensure the veracity and integrity of evidence is that no-one can be convicted of a criminal offence unless there is at least two independent positive corroborating evidences demonstrating guilt. The situation with speeding offences is that a single officer or civilian camera operator provides all the evidence. What should happen is that the officer/operator must first form an opinion that a specific vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. This is called Prior Opinion. Only then may he turn to the “camera” to provide verification of the speed. Leaving aside the proven unreliability of the information produced from such devices, while the requirement for 2 evidences may just about be satisfied in no way can it possibly satisfy the requirement for independence. In reality what happens is that the officer/operator uses his “camera” to go on a fishing trip to try to detect a vehicle exceeding the limit and when he does succeed he retrofits his prior opinion that the vehicle was speeding. The officer/operator will swear black and blue that he formed his opinion prior to using the camera but examination of the video, if there is one, invariably demonstrates that, unless the officer/operator has the speed and agility of Superman it is inconceivable that he could perform both tasks consecutively in the correct sequence.
Even when the officer/operator is demonstrated to have been lying to the court his evidence is accepted to convict the often innocent and almost always perfectly safe driver. It is a stain on our hitherto excellent road safety record and a very black stain on the reputation of British justice. I am also convinced that these injustices are adversely affecting the relationship between the law abiding general public and the police. I believe that perfectly safe drivers who are “fleeced” by this process well, and I believe often do, resolve never again to give the co-operation to the police upon which they depend for their effective operation.
Again, if road safety were improving and only dangerous drivers were being targeted as a result of this activity albeit illegal a tacit “blind eye” might be turned to what is going on but that is not the case. Thousands, perhaps millions of perfectly safe drivers have their lives adversely affected and in some cases destroyed by a process that has also massively damaged road safety. It has no redeeming qualities.
There are those who say “if you break the law, i.e. speed, you must suffer the consequences”. That is the absolute view but the pragmatists know perfectly well that laws are not and cannot be written to encompass all situations so common sense musty be used in the application of the law. An excellent case demonstrating this is the law against assisting suicide versus those who help someone to avail themselves of Dignitas. Clearly they break British law but common sense demands they will not be prosecuted. The law is not and can never be absolute.
You might think that I wish to see all speed regulations abolished. If you did you would be wrong. It is true that a lot of work needs to be done to make them realistic and effective but to abolish them would not be wise. What I would like to see is properly resourced traffic patrols back on our roads with their clearly stated mission to improve road safety. Specifically they must not be tasked by any means to improve clear-up statistics or to be quasi revenue agents. For the most part, education and training is the answer but for the few who are reckless and dangerous they would have the traffic laws, including speeding, to take these bad and dangerous drivers off the road.
We must regain the position of being in the vanguard of countries for Road Safety and return to a position articulated by the MP who, when he introduced them to the UK, stated that safe, responsible drivers should have no fear of speed limits.
Despite the length of this document, for which I apologise, there are many more facets to this and a lot of information and data to back up what I say here.
Although I am frankly sceptical that this will be addressed, I am prepared to supply the data and information of which I speak and to work with anyone who genuinely wishes to fix this appalling situation.
Why the contribution is important
The present situation is destroying our hitherto excellent Road Safety record.
The injustices perpetrated by this situation is destroying the relationship between the public and the police and that is making the police's job harder not just in traffic issues.
Thousands, perhaps millions, of law abiding perfectly safe drivers are being penalised and their lives and livelihoods are being adversely affected, and in some cases destroyed, for no good effect.
Our hitherto respected legal system is being brought into disrepute.
And the real killer - literally - There has been an estimated 10000 (ten thousand) additional deaths on our roads compared to what would have reasonably been expected if the pre 1995 trends had continued.
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
Posted by
ASENNA
July 02, 2010 at 14:59
"The present situation is destroying our hitherto excellent Road Safety record."
Ignorant drivel. Road fatalities are at their lowest since records began. You then repeat the fraudulent lies of the late and unlamented charlatan Paul Smith to back up your nonsense ( "10000 additional deaths on our roads compared to what would have reasonably been ") .Smith was to road safety what David Icke is to religion.He was a relentless abuser of statistics and proven liar.
The speed limits are clearly marked and anyone too stupid or blind to obey them deserves everything they get. Exceeding the speed limit kills.....its a fact. Stop your moaning , grow up ,and obey the road traffic laws.
Ignorant drivel. Road fatalities are at their lowest since records began. You then repeat the fraudulent lies of the late and unlamented charlatan Paul Smith to back up your nonsense ( "10000 additional deaths on our roads compared to what would have reasonably been ") .Smith was to road safety what David Icke is to religion.He was a relentless abuser of statistics and proven liar.
The speed limits are clearly marked and anyone too stupid or blind to obey them deserves everything they get. Exceeding the speed limit kills.....its a fact. Stop your moaning , grow up ,and obey the road traffic laws.
Posted by
Elsie
July 02, 2010 at 15:12
Repeal the 50mph blanket limits. Repeal all speed camera and safety van camera legislation and start again with a truly sensible policy.
Impose speed limits at whatever limit they are really needed as and where they are truly needed.
Teach people to drive more safely and address the true causes of RTAs, in all different categories of vehicle. Speed per se does not kill: the driver kills. The driver's condition in terms of concentration or tiredness, whether they have a cold or have not slept well, are on medication, are in a happy or angry mood, have children or other distractions in the car, the vehicle's overall condition and its design specifications and age, the driver's experience, their eyesight, their knowledge of the road in questions, other intrinsic and external hazards to the environment, the road's surface and markings.... I could go on and on.
I live in a tourist area: slow drivers, tourists gawping at the scenery or arguing with the map-reader are a huge hazard and major source of irritation and frustration with local drivers, often leading to accidents on overtaking because the roads are not suitable for overtaking but the tourist is driving so slow that something has to be done to get past them (like if you have to catch a once every 2 hours train or be at work, get to a hospital appointment and just generally get on with your life). No excuse for bad driving, I know, but it is highly annoying and, factually, it does cause accidents. It is surely equally careless, inconsiderate or bad driving to be going inappropriately slowly as driving too fast. In Scotland this is recognised on many roads by signs asking slower drivers to pull in and let other traffic past. Why is this not done in England and elsewhere?
So stop the blanket absolute offence approach and start letting the police and judiciary use their discretion and common sense to encourage good driving and punish tuly bad and dangerous driving.
Impose speed limits at whatever limit they are really needed as and where they are truly needed.
Teach people to drive more safely and address the true causes of RTAs, in all different categories of vehicle. Speed per se does not kill: the driver kills. The driver's condition in terms of concentration or tiredness, whether they have a cold or have not slept well, are on medication, are in a happy or angry mood, have children or other distractions in the car, the vehicle's overall condition and its design specifications and age, the driver's experience, their eyesight, their knowledge of the road in questions, other intrinsic and external hazards to the environment, the road's surface and markings.... I could go on and on.
I live in a tourist area: slow drivers, tourists gawping at the scenery or arguing with the map-reader are a huge hazard and major source of irritation and frustration with local drivers, often leading to accidents on overtaking because the roads are not suitable for overtaking but the tourist is driving so slow that something has to be done to get past them (like if you have to catch a once every 2 hours train or be at work, get to a hospital appointment and just generally get on with your life). No excuse for bad driving, I know, but it is highly annoying and, factually, it does cause accidents. It is surely equally careless, inconsiderate or bad driving to be going inappropriately slowly as driving too fast. In Scotland this is recognised on many roads by signs asking slower drivers to pull in and let other traffic past. Why is this not done in England and elsewhere?
So stop the blanket absolute offence approach and start letting the police and judiciary use their discretion and common sense to encourage good driving and punish tuly bad and dangerous driving.
Posted by
petermagellan
July 02, 2010 at 15:12
Moderators, can we please set a word limit on these ideas? I'm guessing that this is an argument by a disgruntled RT offender for repealing speeding laws and letting irresponsible motorists drive as fast as they like - but since it's so bloody long-winded, I really can't be bothered to read it.
Right, on to the next one. So many crap ideas, so little time...
Right, on to the next one. So many crap ideas, so little time...
Posted by
ASENNA
July 02, 2010 at 15:24
I suspect AitkenBrotherston is a member of the ABD or Association of Bonkers Drivers.They are well known for their pompous , long winded pronouncements .They are mostly elderly , grumpy types who think there was some sort of golden age of motoring.They are mostly motoring libertarians who object to any state control over their driving activities and think they have some sort of ancient right to drive as fast as they like , wherever they like , and whenever they like.
We need more speed cameras.
We need more speed cameras.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 02, 2010 at 15:31
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7870763.stm
Oh dear , oh dear.
It seems the man has not revealed all.
Oh dear , oh dear.
It seems the man has not revealed all.
Posted by
jon_a_lister
July 02, 2010 at 15:56
Long and involved but in the most part true.
Paul smith knew what he was talking about which is more than some of these posts
Paul smith knew what he was talking about which is more than some of these posts
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 04, 2010 at 21:35
Dear Asenna
Wow - what a revelation - despite me cleverly hiding behind my real name you have discovered that I am involved in a speeding case.
Of course a moment's thought might just have produced the idea that because of that involvement I might just know what I am talking about.
“Road fatalities are at their lowest since records began”
Perhaps you might care to explain why just before the introduction of speed cameras and all that goes with them, road fatalities were reducing at a year on year rate of 7.1%, then fell to 2.8% year on year reduction immediately afterwards. Department of Transport figures – not mine.
I'm sure I'm not the ignorant one.
Wow - what a revelation - despite me cleverly hiding behind my real name you have discovered that I am involved in a speeding case.
Of course a moment's thought might just have produced the idea that because of that involvement I might just know what I am talking about.
“Road fatalities are at their lowest since records began”
Perhaps you might care to explain why just before the introduction of speed cameras and all that goes with them, road fatalities were reducing at a year on year rate of 7.1%, then fell to 2.8% year on year reduction immediately afterwards. Department of Transport figures – not mine.
I'm sure I'm not the ignorant one.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 05, 2010 at 10:13
AitkenBrotherston
It would appear you are a convicted speeder with a grudge.
The figures you base your claims on are the interpretation of the late obsessed crank Paul Smith. Just because two events occur at about the same time does not mean there is any causal link between them. I could quite easily produce a graph showing that the " loss of trend " in numbers of road fatalities coincides with the rise in number of cars with CD players. So What ?
A trend is simply a movement in a general direction. Trends are not constant , continuous or necessarily permanent . All trends tend to level out in time. The charlatan Smith produced a graph which showed that he believed if speed cameras had never been introduced then there would not have been a single fatality by 2035. That is how much of a nutter he was. You follow the same deranged logic. If "road fatalities were reducing at a year on year rate of 7.1% " and continued at this rate then we would by this abuse of statistics reach a point of no fatalities at all. An absurd idea , but one shared by all speed deniers. The evidence that exceeding the speed limit increases the risk of accidents is beyond serious dispute.
"The present situation is destroying our hitherto excellent Road Safety record."
Nonsense. We have one of the best road safety records on the world. Partly because we enforce speed limits.
It would appear you are a convicted speeder with a grudge.
The figures you base your claims on are the interpretation of the late obsessed crank Paul Smith. Just because two events occur at about the same time does not mean there is any causal link between them. I could quite easily produce a graph showing that the " loss of trend " in numbers of road fatalities coincides with the rise in number of cars with CD players. So What ?
A trend is simply a movement in a general direction. Trends are not constant , continuous or necessarily permanent . All trends tend to level out in time. The charlatan Smith produced a graph which showed that he believed if speed cameras had never been introduced then there would not have been a single fatality by 2035. That is how much of a nutter he was. You follow the same deranged logic. If "road fatalities were reducing at a year on year rate of 7.1% " and continued at this rate then we would by this abuse of statistics reach a point of no fatalities at all. An absurd idea , but one shared by all speed deniers. The evidence that exceeding the speed limit increases the risk of accidents is beyond serious dispute.
"The present situation is destroying our hitherto excellent Road Safety record."
Nonsense. We have one of the best road safety records on the world. Partly because we enforce speed limits.
Posted by
gbell
July 05, 2010 at 12:20
Quote from ASENNA "Exceeding the speed limit kills.....its a fact."
Well let's see - almost 2 million UK drivers per year get prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, and yet they don't seem to cause 2 million deaths (or any at all probably). So your 'fact' isn't actually a fact at all but merely a (stupid) statement of opinion.
Yes,road casualties are at the lowest level ever, which is great, but they've been falling steadily since the mid 1960s. So for some 35 years road casualties were falling without all the speed humps, stupidly low speed limits or speed cameras that the ASENNAs of this world are so keen on.
Good safe driving comes from paying attention to what's going on around you and driving at a suitable speed for the conditions - it has nothing whatsoever to do with mindlessly adhering to some arbitrary number on a pole. Even official statistics show exceeding the speed limit to be the cause of just 5% of crashes - therefore the majority must occur at or below the speed limit and be caused by factors other than speed. Factors that 'enforcing the speed limit' by mindless speed cameras will do nothing to address.
If ASENNA (chosen for irony no doubt) is that keen on mindlessly obeying stupid laws I suggest he moves to North Korea. Britain is still a democracy, and in a democracy stupid laws should be challenged - which is of course the whole point of this Your Freedom excercise.
Well let's see - almost 2 million UK drivers per year get prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, and yet they don't seem to cause 2 million deaths (or any at all probably). So your 'fact' isn't actually a fact at all but merely a (stupid) statement of opinion.
Yes,road casualties are at the lowest level ever, which is great, but they've been falling steadily since the mid 1960s. So for some 35 years road casualties were falling without all the speed humps, stupidly low speed limits or speed cameras that the ASENNAs of this world are so keen on.
Good safe driving comes from paying attention to what's going on around you and driving at a suitable speed for the conditions - it has nothing whatsoever to do with mindlessly adhering to some arbitrary number on a pole. Even official statistics show exceeding the speed limit to be the cause of just 5% of crashes - therefore the majority must occur at or below the speed limit and be caused by factors other than speed. Factors that 'enforcing the speed limit' by mindless speed cameras will do nothing to address.
If ASENNA (chosen for irony no doubt) is that keen on mindlessly obeying stupid laws I suggest he moves to North Korea. Britain is still a democracy, and in a democracy stupid laws should be challenged - which is of course the whole point of this Your Freedom excercise.
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 05, 2010 at 13:35
Dear Asenna
Yes! I am a person who has been illegally convicted of speeding and my grudge is against all those who conspire to corrupt our legal system and in so doing disregard the damage they cause to the people of my country.
To reiterate – I do not wish to see the speeding laws repealed I wish to see them properly used to promote road safety not as a “looking as if we're doing something” political fig leaf or a cynical not so stealth tax that actually is doing great harm.
It's nice to see that you feel you have to stoop to personal insults. By doing so you elequently highlight the paucity of your argument.
Yes! I am a person who has been illegally convicted of speeding and my grudge is against all those who conspire to corrupt our legal system and in so doing disregard the damage they cause to the people of my country.
To reiterate – I do not wish to see the speeding laws repealed I wish to see them properly used to promote road safety not as a “looking as if we're doing something” political fig leaf or a cynical not so stealth tax that actually is doing great harm.
It's nice to see that you feel you have to stoop to personal insults. By doing so you elequently highlight the paucity of your argument.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 05, 2010 at 13:51
Quote from ASENNA "Exceeding the speed limit kills.....its a fact."
Well let's see - almost 2 million UK drivers per year get prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, and yet they don't seem to cause 2 million deaths (or any at all probably). So your 'fact' isn't actually a fact at all but merely a (stupid) statement of opinion."
Exceeding the speed limit increases the risk of accidents and the severity of accidents.A well established , researched fact in this country and others.
Exceeding the speed limit is not the cause of 5% of accidents , a well rehearsed lie put about by apologists of speeding motorists based on the misreading of a document that does not even claim to be about the causes of accidents. The real figure is at least 15%
"Mindlessly obeying stupid laws"
Nothing better sums up the arrogance of the motoring libertarians , this assumption that they are above the law and pick and choose which laws they wish to obey.
"So for some 35 years road casualties were falling without all the speed humps, stupidly low speed limits or speed cameras "
Straight from The Paul Smith School of juvenile abuse of statistics and ignoring of facts.During those 35 years we also had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc. Apparently none of this mattered , fatalities went down due to the absence of speed cameras and nothing else.
Repeated polls show people want speed limits enforced in their streets , villages and towns. If you can`t except what most people want in relation to road safety then i suggest you bugger off to North Korea , bit only after you have had a chat with next of kin of the hundreds of people killed and seriously injured by speeding motorists each year. Contact the road safety charity Brake , they can arrange. Of course it was the founder of that charity that Paul Smith wanted murdered.
Well let's see - almost 2 million UK drivers per year get prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, and yet they don't seem to cause 2 million deaths (or any at all probably). So your 'fact' isn't actually a fact at all but merely a (stupid) statement of opinion."
Exceeding the speed limit increases the risk of accidents and the severity of accidents.A well established , researched fact in this country and others.
Exceeding the speed limit is not the cause of 5% of accidents , a well rehearsed lie put about by apologists of speeding motorists based on the misreading of a document that does not even claim to be about the causes of accidents. The real figure is at least 15%
"Mindlessly obeying stupid laws"
Nothing better sums up the arrogance of the motoring libertarians , this assumption that they are above the law and pick and choose which laws they wish to obey.
"So for some 35 years road casualties were falling without all the speed humps, stupidly low speed limits or speed cameras "
Straight from The Paul Smith School of juvenile abuse of statistics and ignoring of facts.During those 35 years we also had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc. Apparently none of this mattered , fatalities went down due to the absence of speed cameras and nothing else.
Repeated polls show people want speed limits enforced in their streets , villages and towns. If you can`t except what most people want in relation to road safety then i suggest you bugger off to North Korea , bit only after you have had a chat with next of kin of the hundreds of people killed and seriously injured by speeding motorists each year. Contact the road safety charity Brake , they can arrange. Of course it was the founder of that charity that Paul Smith wanted murdered.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 05, 2010 at 14:11
Posted by
ASENNA
July 05, 2010 at 14:28
AitkenBrotherston
"cynical not so stealth tax that actually is doing great harm."
A fine is NOT a tax.
A tax is a compulsory charge made by a government. A fine is self imposed and voluntary , easily avoided by obeying the law.
So a fine is not a tax.
Speed cameras are supported by the majority. Only a few loud mouthed motoring libertarians want speed limits increased or want them unenforced.
"cynical not so stealth tax that actually is doing great harm."
A fine is NOT a tax.
A tax is a compulsory charge made by a government. A fine is self imposed and voluntary , easily avoided by obeying the law.
So a fine is not a tax.
Speed cameras are supported by the majority. Only a few loud mouthed motoring libertarians want speed limits increased or want them unenforced.
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 05, 2010 at 18:06
Dear Asenna
Tax comes in many forms. VAT is avoidable by not purchasing anything that has VAT added but it is still a tax.
Still if it being called a Stealth TAX so offends your sensibilities then lets just call it "Revenue".
You should take up your point about 15% or more accidents being caused by speeding with the DfT because it is their figures that tell us that overall 5% of accidents have speeding (driving faster than the prevailing speed limit) as a factor (not necessarily the cause) with the number falling to 2% for drivers over 25. Of a list of the 10 top causes of accidents, speeding comes way down the list at no.8.
Again, DfT stats.
But you really should read what I say properly. It is true that I believe that some limits are unnecessarily low but I am not advocating the non-enforcement of speed limits or at least not the wholesale non-enforcement of them. I am asking for intelligent application and enforcement of speed limits for the promotion of Road Safety and only Road Safety.
I am sorry if that offends your mind set but there it is.
Capital punishment is supported by the majority but that does not make that right. Similarly, even if Speed Cameras were supported by the majority, which I seriously doubt, that does not make them effective either.
You make continued derogatory remarks about the late Paul Smith and his handling of statistics. If you wish a lesson in the misuse of statistics you need go no further than any of the Camera Partnerships or Brake. Oh! and that view is backed up by people well qualified in the use of statistics.
Might I suggest a less emotional approach to this very important, literally vital subject. There is a plethora of views and statistics used and misused surrounding this issue. I am asking for a proper review of what is going on at the moment so we can have a Road Safety and attendant legal system that is transparently fair, rational and effective.
Tax comes in many forms. VAT is avoidable by not purchasing anything that has VAT added but it is still a tax.
Still if it being called a Stealth TAX so offends your sensibilities then lets just call it "Revenue".
You should take up your point about 15% or more accidents being caused by speeding with the DfT because it is their figures that tell us that overall 5% of accidents have speeding (driving faster than the prevailing speed limit) as a factor (not necessarily the cause) with the number falling to 2% for drivers over 25. Of a list of the 10 top causes of accidents, speeding comes way down the list at no.8.
Again, DfT stats.
But you really should read what I say properly. It is true that I believe that some limits are unnecessarily low but I am not advocating the non-enforcement of speed limits or at least not the wholesale non-enforcement of them. I am asking for intelligent application and enforcement of speed limits for the promotion of Road Safety and only Road Safety.
I am sorry if that offends your mind set but there it is.
Capital punishment is supported by the majority but that does not make that right. Similarly, even if Speed Cameras were supported by the majority, which I seriously doubt, that does not make them effective either.
You make continued derogatory remarks about the late Paul Smith and his handling of statistics. If you wish a lesson in the misuse of statistics you need go no further than any of the Camera Partnerships or Brake. Oh! and that view is backed up by people well qualified in the use of statistics.
Might I suggest a less emotional approach to this very important, literally vital subject. There is a plethora of views and statistics used and misused surrounding this issue. I am asking for a proper review of what is going on at the moment so we can have a Road Safety and attendant legal system that is transparently fair, rational and effective.
Posted by
gbell
July 05, 2010 at 20:48
Another quote from ASENNA. "Exceeding the speed limit increases the risk of accidents.A well established , researched fact in this country and others." And yet in Germany where they have unlimited autobahns and on the Isle of Man where they have no rural speed limits they have safer roads than in many countries with relatively low speed limits. So explain that one. Also, the USA has had years of LOWER accident rates with HIGHER (non urban) speed limits. And during the time that Montana had no numerical speed limits outside built up areas it had its lowest accident rate ever. Then it was forced to introduce speed limits and the accident rate went UP. So much for your 'slower is safer' approach. Real road safety isn't that simple see? Well obviously you don't...
"Exceeding the speed limit is not the cause of 5% of accidents , a well rehearsed lie put about by apologists of speeding motorists based on the misreading of a document that does not even claim to be about the causes of accidents. The real figure is at least 15%". So you say, but that 5% figure I quoted is a rough average of official figures I've seen from DfT over several years. And I'd rather believe those than you.
"Nothing better sums up the arrogance of the motoring libertarians , this assumption that they are above the law and pick and choose which laws they wish to obey." ALL bad/stupid laws should be challenged and there are plenty of them, not only eroding personal freedoms but damaging British business too. Fortunately our new government agrees, hence this forum - which must really irk totalitarians like you ASENNA. Not one of New Labour's '2 new laws a day' mob are you?
"During those 35 years we also had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc. Apparently none of this mattered , fatalities went down due to the absence of speed cameras and nothing else." There you go talking rubbish again. Seat belts, MOTs, minimum tread depths and the breathalyser have all been key elements in reducing casualties on our roads - as have improvements in car design and road layout. That's precisely WHY road casualties were going down for 35 years and would doubtless continued to have gone down without draconian speed cameras etc.
"Repeated polls show people want speed limits enforced in their streets , villages and towns.If you can`t except what most people want in relation to road safety then i suggest you bugger off to North Korea " Repeated polls by who - anti-car self interest groups like Transport 2000? Polls also show that most people think that speed cameras are more about raising revenue than road safety. And you'll find several cases of residents forcing the removal of speed bumps that were installed without request or consultation because when it really came down to it the MAJORITY didn't want them. Let's hear it for true democracy...
"Contact the road safety charity Brake. Of course it was the founder of that charity that Paul Smith wanted murdered." Now that's nothing short of a libel against a man who's no longer around to defend himself. If you have proof then provide it - which you won't, because you haven't, because it doesn't exist.
And as for your link to Monbiot, well I have to say that I found it hilarious when the man who spent years pontificating that nobody needed to have a car moved to the country and then announced that he'd had to - buy a car. See - he talks rubbish as well.
"Exceeding the speed limit is not the cause of 5% of accidents , a well rehearsed lie put about by apologists of speeding motorists based on the misreading of a document that does not even claim to be about the causes of accidents. The real figure is at least 15%". So you say, but that 5% figure I quoted is a rough average of official figures I've seen from DfT over several years. And I'd rather believe those than you.
"Nothing better sums up the arrogance of the motoring libertarians , this assumption that they are above the law and pick and choose which laws they wish to obey." ALL bad/stupid laws should be challenged and there are plenty of them, not only eroding personal freedoms but damaging British business too. Fortunately our new government agrees, hence this forum - which must really irk totalitarians like you ASENNA. Not one of New Labour's '2 new laws a day' mob are you?
"During those 35 years we also had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc. Apparently none of this mattered , fatalities went down due to the absence of speed cameras and nothing else." There you go talking rubbish again. Seat belts, MOTs, minimum tread depths and the breathalyser have all been key elements in reducing casualties on our roads - as have improvements in car design and road layout. That's precisely WHY road casualties were going down for 35 years and would doubtless continued to have gone down without draconian speed cameras etc.
"Repeated polls show people want speed limits enforced in their streets , villages and towns.If you can`t except what most people want in relation to road safety then i suggest you bugger off to North Korea " Repeated polls by who - anti-car self interest groups like Transport 2000? Polls also show that most people think that speed cameras are more about raising revenue than road safety. And you'll find several cases of residents forcing the removal of speed bumps that were installed without request or consultation because when it really came down to it the MAJORITY didn't want them. Let's hear it for true democracy...
"Contact the road safety charity Brake. Of course it was the founder of that charity that Paul Smith wanted murdered." Now that's nothing short of a libel against a man who's no longer around to defend himself. If you have proof then provide it - which you won't, because you haven't, because it doesn't exist.
And as for your link to Monbiot, well I have to say that I found it hilarious when the man who spent years pontificating that nobody needed to have a car moved to the country and then announced that he'd had to - buy a car. See - he talks rubbish as well.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 06, 2010 at 10:23
"Contact the road safety charity Brake. Of course it was the founder of that charity that Paul Smith wanted murdered." Now that's nothing short of a libel against a man who's no longer around to defend himself. If you have proof then provide it - which you won't, because you haven't, because it doesn't exist."
An article from the Spectator:
Speed cameras are good for you
The Spectator
10 January 2004
http://www.spectator.co.uk
Driving fast is dangerous, says Ross Clark, and the middle classes should stop whining about attempts to slow them down.
I am beginning to feel a bit lonely among fellow columnists. I do not have a speeding conviction upon which to vent spleen. Maybe one of these days I will notice a flash in my rear-view mirror, followed by a brown envelope in the post, and I will be ranting with the best of them: Simon Jenkins in the Times, Alan Judd in this magazine and almost everyone, every day, in the Daily Telegraph. But somehow I doubt it. I don’t seem to have a great deal of trouble adjusting the speed of my Peugeot to limits which, if anything, err rather too much on the liberal side.
The above-mentioned gentlemen represent the civilised end of the anti-camera lobby. There is a more sinister end. Last month Mary Williams, who founded a road-safety pressure group Brake after her mother and boyfriend were killed by speeding motorists in separate incidents, received death threats via a motorists’ website, Pistonheads.com. One user of the site posted a note suggesting that her brake cables be cut; another described her as a witch who should be burned at the stake. Her crime was to appear on television to defend speed cameras. Invited to denounce the comments, Paul Smith, the founder of motorists’ pressure group SafeSpeed, remarked, ‘Mary Williams is a dangerous character because she supports a fatally flawed policy. The comments made about her are mild reactions, quite frankly.’
Smith also said anyone who receives a speeding ticket should look through the obituary column of their local newspaper and find someone who has died recently. He said they should then name that person as the driver. This of course would mean the next of kin would get this charming present. Despicable. Proof available if required.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 06, 2010 at 10:32
A statement by the Transport Research Laboratory
There is a vast amount of evidence demonstrating the strong link between vehicle speed and road accidents. So why does material keep appearing in the media suggesting the effect is small?
The issue is so important we feel it is time to reiterate the true position. In the 1990s a number of police forces conducted a limited trial of an experimental accident reporting system. The results were reported clearly in TRL Report 323 but they have frequently been misquoted.
Speed increases the impact of many of the factors which contribute to accidents. For example, "aggressive driving" or "driving too closely" are both much worse at speed. Such factors were recorded in the system separately from speed; but speed plays a big part in their effect on accidents. The system also allowed speed to be recorded in its own right. The total effect of speed on accidents is obviously the sum of both types of factor.
Misunderstandings in the press appear to have resulted in two ways. First, speed identified as a separate factor in its own right was present in 15% of accidents, not the 7.3%, or lower figures, that are often wrongly quoted. Secondly, the 15% is only one part of the total effect of speed on accidents. When allowance is made for all the other speed-dependent factors, the contribution is, we believe, much greater.
This means that speed is far more important in causing accidents and increasing their severity than the misquoted figures suggest. Importantly, other TRL studies have directly examined the relationship between speed and accidents. These are summarised in TRL reports 421 and 511. They avoid the inevitably subjective judgements associated with studies of contributory factors which, for example, involve estimating what an appropriate speed is in each situation.
* Studies of individual drivers have examined how drivers' speed choice affects their likelihood of accident involvement. Accident records of more than 10,000 drivers were related statistically to their observed speeding behaviour. These showed clearly that accident risk rises the faster a driver travels: at 25% above the average speed, a driver is about 6 times as likely to have an accident than a driver travelling at the average speed. (see graph)
* Road-based studies looked at how speeds on a given road affect accidents occurring there. Several hundred thousand observations of vehicle speed on almost 300 roads of different types were related statistically to the numbers of accidents on those roads. These showed clearly that the faster the average speed of traffic on a given type of road, the more accidents there are. Injury accidents rise rapidly as average speed increases, if all else remains constant.
Many 'before and after' studies of measures which slow traffic and result in substantially fewer accidents have also been reported. These measures include, for example, traffic calming schemes in 20mph zones - where injury accidents were more than halved (TRL Report 215).
These studies together provide extremely robust evidence of how speed affects accidents. They are large-scale studies, of real traffic on real roads, involving rigorous statistical analyses. The conclusions are unambiguous. Remember, 10 people die and 100 are seriously injured on our roads per day. Improvements in driver behaviour have the potential to cut these statistics dramatically; reducing drivers' speeds will play a vital part in this.
Reproduced, with permission, from TRL News, September 2002 enquiries@trl.co.uk
There is a vast amount of evidence demonstrating the strong link between vehicle speed and road accidents. So why does material keep appearing in the media suggesting the effect is small?
The issue is so important we feel it is time to reiterate the true position. In the 1990s a number of police forces conducted a limited trial of an experimental accident reporting system. The results were reported clearly in TRL Report 323 but they have frequently been misquoted.
Speed increases the impact of many of the factors which contribute to accidents. For example, "aggressive driving" or "driving too closely" are both much worse at speed. Such factors were recorded in the system separately from speed; but speed plays a big part in their effect on accidents. The system also allowed speed to be recorded in its own right. The total effect of speed on accidents is obviously the sum of both types of factor.
Misunderstandings in the press appear to have resulted in two ways. First, speed identified as a separate factor in its own right was present in 15% of accidents, not the 7.3%, or lower figures, that are often wrongly quoted. Secondly, the 15% is only one part of the total effect of speed on accidents. When allowance is made for all the other speed-dependent factors, the contribution is, we believe, much greater.
This means that speed is far more important in causing accidents and increasing their severity than the misquoted figures suggest. Importantly, other TRL studies have directly examined the relationship between speed and accidents. These are summarised in TRL reports 421 and 511. They avoid the inevitably subjective judgements associated with studies of contributory factors which, for example, involve estimating what an appropriate speed is in each situation.
* Studies of individual drivers have examined how drivers' speed choice affects their likelihood of accident involvement. Accident records of more than 10,000 drivers were related statistically to their observed speeding behaviour. These showed clearly that accident risk rises the faster a driver travels: at 25% above the average speed, a driver is about 6 times as likely to have an accident than a driver travelling at the average speed. (see graph)
* Road-based studies looked at how speeds on a given road affect accidents occurring there. Several hundred thousand observations of vehicle speed on almost 300 roads of different types were related statistically to the numbers of accidents on those roads. These showed clearly that the faster the average speed of traffic on a given type of road, the more accidents there are. Injury accidents rise rapidly as average speed increases, if all else remains constant.
Many 'before and after' studies of measures which slow traffic and result in substantially fewer accidents have also been reported. These measures include, for example, traffic calming schemes in 20mph zones - where injury accidents were more than halved (TRL Report 215).
These studies together provide extremely robust evidence of how speed affects accidents. They are large-scale studies, of real traffic on real roads, involving rigorous statistical analyses. The conclusions are unambiguous. Remember, 10 people die and 100 are seriously injured on our roads per day. Improvements in driver behaviour have the potential to cut these statistics dramatically; reducing drivers' speeds will play a vital part in this.
Reproduced, with permission, from TRL News, September 2002 enquiries@trl.co.uk
Posted by
ASENNA
July 06, 2010 at 10:32
A statement by the Transport Research Laboratory
There is a vast amount of evidence demonstrating the strong link between vehicle speed and road accidents. So why does material keep appearing in the media suggesting the effect is small?
The issue is so important we feel it is time to reiterate the true position. In the 1990s a number of police forces conducted a limited trial of an experimental accident reporting system. The results were reported clearly in TRL Report 323 but they have frequently been misquoted.
Speed increases the impact of many of the factors which contribute to accidents. For example, "aggressive driving" or "driving too closely" are both much worse at speed. Such factors were recorded in the system separately from speed; but speed plays a big part in their effect on accidents. The system also allowed speed to be recorded in its own right. The total effect of speed on accidents is obviously the sum of both types of factor.
Misunderstandings in the press appear to have resulted in two ways. First, speed identified as a separate factor in its own right was present in 15% of accidents, not the 7.3%, or lower figures, that are often wrongly quoted. Secondly, the 15% is only one part of the total effect of speed on accidents. When allowance is made for all the other speed-dependent factors, the contribution is, we believe, much greater.
This means that speed is far more important in causing accidents and increasing their severity than the misquoted figures suggest. Importantly, other TRL studies have directly examined the relationship between speed and accidents. These are summarised in TRL reports 421 and 511. They avoid the inevitably subjective judgements associated with studies of contributory factors which, for example, involve estimating what an appropriate speed is in each situation.
* Studies of individual drivers have examined how drivers' speed choice affects their likelihood of accident involvement. Accident records of more than 10,000 drivers were related statistically to their observed speeding behaviour. These showed clearly that accident risk rises the faster a driver travels: at 25% above the average speed, a driver is about 6 times as likely to have an accident than a driver travelling at the average speed. (see graph)
* Road-based studies looked at how speeds on a given road affect accidents occurring there. Several hundred thousand observations of vehicle speed on almost 300 roads of different types were related statistically to the numbers of accidents on those roads. These showed clearly that the faster the average speed of traffic on a given type of road, the more accidents there are. Injury accidents rise rapidly as average speed increases, if all else remains constant.
Many 'before and after' studies of measures which slow traffic and result in substantially fewer accidents have also been reported. These measures include, for example, traffic calming schemes in 20mph zones - where injury accidents were more than halved (TRL Report 215).
These studies together provide extremely robust evidence of how speed affects accidents. They are large-scale studies, of real traffic on real roads, involving rigorous statistical analyses. The conclusions are unambiguous. Remember, 10 people die and 100 are seriously injured on our roads per day. Improvements in driver behaviour have the potential to cut these statistics dramatically; reducing drivers' speeds will play a vital part in this.
Reproduced, with permission, from TRL News, September 2002 enquiries@trl.co.uk
There is a vast amount of evidence demonstrating the strong link between vehicle speed and road accidents. So why does material keep appearing in the media suggesting the effect is small?
The issue is so important we feel it is time to reiterate the true position. In the 1990s a number of police forces conducted a limited trial of an experimental accident reporting system. The results were reported clearly in TRL Report 323 but they have frequently been misquoted.
Speed increases the impact of many of the factors which contribute to accidents. For example, "aggressive driving" or "driving too closely" are both much worse at speed. Such factors were recorded in the system separately from speed; but speed plays a big part in their effect on accidents. The system also allowed speed to be recorded in its own right. The total effect of speed on accidents is obviously the sum of both types of factor.
Misunderstandings in the press appear to have resulted in two ways. First, speed identified as a separate factor in its own right was present in 15% of accidents, not the 7.3%, or lower figures, that are often wrongly quoted. Secondly, the 15% is only one part of the total effect of speed on accidents. When allowance is made for all the other speed-dependent factors, the contribution is, we believe, much greater.
This means that speed is far more important in causing accidents and increasing their severity than the misquoted figures suggest. Importantly, other TRL studies have directly examined the relationship between speed and accidents. These are summarised in TRL reports 421 and 511. They avoid the inevitably subjective judgements associated with studies of contributory factors which, for example, involve estimating what an appropriate speed is in each situation.
* Studies of individual drivers have examined how drivers' speed choice affects their likelihood of accident involvement. Accident records of more than 10,000 drivers were related statistically to their observed speeding behaviour. These showed clearly that accident risk rises the faster a driver travels: at 25% above the average speed, a driver is about 6 times as likely to have an accident than a driver travelling at the average speed. (see graph)
* Road-based studies looked at how speeds on a given road affect accidents occurring there. Several hundred thousand observations of vehicle speed on almost 300 roads of different types were related statistically to the numbers of accidents on those roads. These showed clearly that the faster the average speed of traffic on a given type of road, the more accidents there are. Injury accidents rise rapidly as average speed increases, if all else remains constant.
Many 'before and after' studies of measures which slow traffic and result in substantially fewer accidents have also been reported. These measures include, for example, traffic calming schemes in 20mph zones - where injury accidents were more than halved (TRL Report 215).
These studies together provide extremely robust evidence of how speed affects accidents. They are large-scale studies, of real traffic on real roads, involving rigorous statistical analyses. The conclusions are unambiguous. Remember, 10 people die and 100 are seriously injured on our roads per day. Improvements in driver behaviour have the potential to cut these statistics dramatically; reducing drivers' speeds will play a vital part in this.
Reproduced, with permission, from TRL News, September 2002 enquiries@trl.co.uk
Posted by
ASENNA
July 06, 2010 at 10:42
Posted by AitkenBrotherston July 05, 2010 at 06:06PM
Dear Asenna
"Tax comes in many forms. VAT is avoidable by not purchasing anything that has VAT added but it is still a tax.
Still if it being called a Stealth TAX so offends your sensibilities then lets just call it "Revenue".
No , lets call it a fine as that is what it is.
Been driving for 30+ years and i have never paid this " tax" or " revenue ". Nor have most other motorists. Fines are easily avoided by obeying the law , give it a try.
http://www.trl.co.uk/online[…]uency_of_road_accidents.htm
Dear Asenna
"Tax comes in many forms. VAT is avoidable by not purchasing anything that has VAT added but it is still a tax.
Still if it being called a Stealth TAX so offends your sensibilities then lets just call it "Revenue".
No , lets call it a fine as that is what it is.
Been driving for 30+ years and i have never paid this " tax" or " revenue ". Nor have most other motorists. Fines are easily avoided by obeying the law , give it a try.
http://www.trl.co.uk/online[…]uency_of_road_accidents.htm
Posted by
ASENNA
July 06, 2010 at 11:04
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 06, 2010 at 20:25
Dear Asenna
The present regime's concentration on speed to the virtual exclusion of other factors to improve road safety is flawed. Whether you like it or not, it has damaged road safety. But what is just as bad is that the regime has also corrupted the legal system to the point that an innocent driver has almost no chance of establishing his innocence.
The result is that innocent and perfectly safe drivers are penalised while dangerous drivers are not identified or stopped.
You say “Fines are easily avoided by obeying the law“. Unfortunately, again whether you like it or not, that is not true.
The present regime's concentration on speed to the virtual exclusion of other factors to improve road safety is flawed. Whether you like it or not, it has damaged road safety. But what is just as bad is that the regime has also corrupted the legal system to the point that an innocent driver has almost no chance of establishing his innocence.
The result is that innocent and perfectly safe drivers are penalised while dangerous drivers are not identified or stopped.
You say “Fines are easily avoided by obeying the law“. Unfortunately, again whether you like it or not, that is not true.
Posted by
DJWarden
July 07, 2010 at 16:02
I stick to the speed limits, I have never had a speeding fine, or caused an accident. Coincidence?
Posted by
ASENNA
July 07, 2010 at 18:50
Posted by AitkenBrotherston July 06, 2010 at 08:25PM
Dear Asenna
"The present regime's concentration on speed to the virtual exclusion of other factors to improve road safety is flawed."
Never watched Police Interceptors , Traffic police or any other of the multitude of road cops TV shows ? They spend most of their time looking for the uninsured , the untaxed , dangerous drivers and assorted crooks. The " present regime " have invested most of their resources in road safety education : about having a break when driving , not drinking ,of being bike aware and a dozen other topics not related to speed.
The " concentration on speed " you talk of is a myth.
Dear Asenna
"The present regime's concentration on speed to the virtual exclusion of other factors to improve road safety is flawed."
Never watched Police Interceptors , Traffic police or any other of the multitude of road cops TV shows ? They spend most of their time looking for the uninsured , the untaxed , dangerous drivers and assorted crooks. The " present regime " have invested most of their resources in road safety education : about having a break when driving , not drinking ,of being bike aware and a dozen other topics not related to speed.
The " concentration on speed " you talk of is a myth.
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 07, 2010 at 22:11
@ASenna: Hello Spinny, still typing furiously?
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 07, 2010 at 22:19
Sorry, for everyone else, the huge chip on the shoulder about a guy called Paul Smith who ran Safespeed makes it highly likely that ASENNA is a well known and multiply-banned troll of multiple car related forums. Despite being (according to him, anyway) a committed cyclist, he's also trolled and been banned from multiple cycling forums. When your friends don't like you either...
I await the flurry of links to Chapman Central with barely disguised anticipation.
Thankfully, the rating system on this website makes it clear what everyone else thinks of him.
I await the flurry of links to Chapman Central with barely disguised anticipation.
Thankfully, the rating system on this website makes it clear what everyone else thinks of him.
Posted by
SafeSpeed
July 07, 2010 at 23:10
Please see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trlfudge.html just to start with.
I have requested that ALL libellous material stated by "ASenna" be removed forthwith.
I have requested that ALL libellous material stated by "ASenna" be removed forthwith.
Posted by
safesteve
July 07, 2010 at 23:13
Asenna aka spindrift:
Your comments are unfounded and without support or logic.
The road fatalities have been lowest for many decades - in all countries, for each and every year, even before the focus on speed enforcement arose. However, We (in the UK) no longer have the safest roads in the world.
The fatality gap is clear for all to see: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=214352#p214352
Many speed limits are set unreasonably, for example the great majority of drivers want to see the motorway limits increased instead of further risking needless criminalisation (youguv/admiral poll). Also, "only 27% think speed cameras improve road safety" - you're opinion is clearly out of step with the wider population.
It is well known that speed cameras were actually intended to replace real traffic police - coincidentally, trafpol numbers have reduced even though traffic levels have increased.
Oh, and while you're talking of causality - I can only assume you understand that speed cameras haven't actually been proven to be effective (various illusions such as www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html).
The much more recent RoadCasualtiesGreatBritain2008 shows your 15% figure for 'accidents' is wrong. Further to that, that factor is usually one of several contributory factors, so elimination of that one factor may not have prevented a collision; or elimination of any other factor (e.g. being impaired) may have prevented the collision (IIRC, there are an average of about 2.5 factors per fatal collision).
Oh yes, I've never been done for speeding in the entire 13 years of me holding a full licence, so you can't 'ad hominem' me by accusing me of holding a grudge, indeed it seems the shoe quite possibly on the other foot.....
Your comments are unfounded and without support or logic.
The road fatalities have been lowest for many decades - in all countries, for each and every year, even before the focus on speed enforcement arose. However, We (in the UK) no longer have the safest roads in the world.
The fatality gap is clear for all to see: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=214352#p214352
Many speed limits are set unreasonably, for example the great majority of drivers want to see the motorway limits increased instead of further risking needless criminalisation (youguv/admiral poll). Also, "only 27% think speed cameras improve road safety" - you're opinion is clearly out of step with the wider population.
It is well known that speed cameras were actually intended to replace real traffic police - coincidentally, trafpol numbers have reduced even though traffic levels have increased.
Oh, and while you're talking of causality - I can only assume you understand that speed cameras haven't actually been proven to be effective (various illusions such as www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html).
The much more recent RoadCasualtiesGreatBritain2008 shows your 15% figure for 'accidents' is wrong. Further to that, that factor is usually one of several contributory factors, so elimination of that one factor may not have prevented a collision; or elimination of any other factor (e.g. being impaired) may have prevented the collision (IIRC, there are an average of about 2.5 factors per fatal collision).
Oh yes, I've never been done for speeding in the entire 13 years of me holding a full licence, so you can't 'ad hominem' me by accusing me of holding a grudge, indeed it seems the shoe quite possibly on the other foot.....
Posted by
fluffnik
July 08, 2010 at 01:10
I'm a motorist and liberal/libertarian, and happy to proclaim both.
Every driver who has successfully rounded a tight corner on an NSL road has demonstrated the ability to choose a suitable speed independent of any posted limit.
Using speed limits sparingly, only where there are non-obvious hazards would make them a far more effective aid to road safety than the current blanket limits set at what are often contemptibly low levels.
Every driver who has successfully rounded a tight corner on an NSL road has demonstrated the ability to choose a suitable speed independent of any posted limit.
Using speed limits sparingly, only where there are non-obvious hazards would make them a far more effective aid to road safety than the current blanket limits set at what are often contemptibly low levels.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 08, 2010 at 11:31
Posted by SafeSpeed July 07, 2010 at 11:10PM
Please see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trlfudge.html just to start with.
"I have requested that ALL libellous material stated by "ASenna" be removed forthwith."
Nothing libellous about them. Smith described as " mild reactions " the suggestions that Mary Williams should be burnt alive or be murdered by having the brake lines on her car cut. It is a matter of record. As is his advice that people pervert the course of justice by the giving of a dead persons name as the driver.A despicable and nasty act. He also refused to publish his back of a beer mat calculations in a proper peer reviewed academic journal on the grounds that he did not have the time.What he feared of course was that his juvenile abuses of statistics and attempts to rewrite the basic laws of physics would result in his well deserved humiliation.
Despite what the motoring libertarians say there is no chance that speed limits will be increased. You could all of course form your own party....The Increase Speed Limits and to Hell with everyone else Party. I predict no seats and null points.
Please see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trlfudge.html just to start with.
"I have requested that ALL libellous material stated by "ASenna" be removed forthwith."
Nothing libellous about them. Smith described as " mild reactions " the suggestions that Mary Williams should be burnt alive or be murdered by having the brake lines on her car cut. It is a matter of record. As is his advice that people pervert the course of justice by the giving of a dead persons name as the driver.A despicable and nasty act. He also refused to publish his back of a beer mat calculations in a proper peer reviewed academic journal on the grounds that he did not have the time.What he feared of course was that his juvenile abuses of statistics and attempts to rewrite the basic laws of physics would result in his well deserved humiliation.
Despite what the motoring libertarians say there is no chance that speed limits will be increased. You could all of course form your own party....The Increase Speed Limits and to Hell with everyone else Party. I predict no seats and null points.
Posted by
safesteve
July 08, 2010 at 16:45
Yawn
That’s right Asenna (spindrift), resort to attacks on the person when your logical method has failed.
A quick Google of “smeggy spindrift” will show how all these arguments (and more) have already been demolished and concluded.
I have actually read the actual PH thread with the Mary Williams comments. They were merely tongue-in-check banter - not "suggestions" as you have tried to misrepresent them as. Everyone has treated that thread for what it was - all except you. No such "advice", as you described, was given.
Has the clearly erroneous claims from the SCP's, regarding speed camera effectiveness, been peer-reviewed? If not, then I can only assume you are chasing them with at least the same vigour? SafeSpeed isn't the group which annually rakes in hundreds of millions of pounds from public, as well as dishing out penalties and disqualifications.
I would vote for a "Set Speed Limits to a Reasonable Level, Make Penalties Proportionate, and Make All Road Users (and their guardians) Responsible For Safety" policy; I suspect most folks would too.
Perhaps we should also start a party where web users who make claims against others can only do so with their full details accessible that they can be held to account – that’ll stop obsessive trollers from disrupting debates.
It's odd that someone would argue against reasonably set speed limits in favour of draconian enforcement of needlessly low ones. You are clearly way out of step with public opinion - so who is the crank?
That’s right Asenna (spindrift), resort to attacks on the person when your logical method has failed.
A quick Google of “smeggy spindrift” will show how all these arguments (and more) have already been demolished and concluded.
I have actually read the actual PH thread with the Mary Williams comments. They were merely tongue-in-check banter - not "suggestions" as you have tried to misrepresent them as. Everyone has treated that thread for what it was - all except you. No such "advice", as you described, was given.
Has the clearly erroneous claims from the SCP's, regarding speed camera effectiveness, been peer-reviewed? If not, then I can only assume you are chasing them with at least the same vigour? SafeSpeed isn't the group which annually rakes in hundreds of millions of pounds from public, as well as dishing out penalties and disqualifications.
I would vote for a "Set Speed Limits to a Reasonable Level, Make Penalties Proportionate, and Make All Road Users (and their guardians) Responsible For Safety" policy; I suspect most folks would too.
Perhaps we should also start a party where web users who make claims against others can only do so with their full details accessible that they can be held to account – that’ll stop obsessive trollers from disrupting debates.
It's odd that someone would argue against reasonably set speed limits in favour of draconian enforcement of needlessly low ones. You are clearly way out of step with public opinion - so who is the crank?
Posted by
safesteve
July 08, 2010 at 16:45
Yawn
That’s right Asenna (spindrift), resort to attacks on the person when your logical method has failed.
A quick Google of “smeggy spindrift” will show how all these arguments (and more) have already been demolished and concluded.
I have actually read the actual PH thread with the Mary Williams comments. They were merely tongue-in-check banter - not "suggestions" as you have tried to misrepresent them as. Everyone has treated that thread for what it was - all except you. No such "advice", as you described, was given.
Has the clearly erroneous claims from the SCP's, regarding speed camera effectiveness, been peer-reviewed? If not, then I can only assume you are chasing them with at least the same vigour? SafeSpeed isn't the group which annually rakes in hundreds of millions of pounds from public, as well as dishing out penalties and disqualifications.
I would vote for a "Set Speed Limits to a Reasonable Level, Make Penalties Proportionate, and Make All Road Users (and their guardians) Responsible For Safety" policy; I suspect most folks would too.
Perhaps we should also start a party where web users who make claims against others can only do so with their full details accessible that they can be held to account – that’ll stop obsessive trollers from disrupting debates.
It's odd that someone would argue against reasonably set speed limits in favour of draconian enforcement of needlessly low ones. You are clearly way out of step with public opinion - so who is the crank?
That’s right Asenna (spindrift), resort to attacks on the person when your logical method has failed.
A quick Google of “smeggy spindrift” will show how all these arguments (and more) have already been demolished and concluded.
I have actually read the actual PH thread with the Mary Williams comments. They were merely tongue-in-check banter - not "suggestions" as you have tried to misrepresent them as. Everyone has treated that thread for what it was - all except you. No such "advice", as you described, was given.
Has the clearly erroneous claims from the SCP's, regarding speed camera effectiveness, been peer-reviewed? If not, then I can only assume you are chasing them with at least the same vigour? SafeSpeed isn't the group which annually rakes in hundreds of millions of pounds from public, as well as dishing out penalties and disqualifications.
I would vote for a "Set Speed Limits to a Reasonable Level, Make Penalties Proportionate, and Make All Road Users (and their guardians) Responsible For Safety" policy; I suspect most folks would too.
Perhaps we should also start a party where web users who make claims against others can only do so with their full details accessible that they can be held to account – that’ll stop obsessive trollers from disrupting debates.
It's odd that someone would argue against reasonably set speed limits in favour of draconian enforcement of needlessly low ones. You are clearly way out of step with public opinion - so who is the crank?
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 08, 2010 at 18:45
ASENNA: If we can't have a link to Chapman Central, can we at least have a link to something from Reading University? That's usually the next fallback position.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 08, 2010 at 20:06
"I have actually read the actual PH thread with the Mary Williams comments. They were merely tongue-in-check banter .."
Was this tongue -in-cheek? Smith trying to pervert the course of justice with his disgusting advice :
Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for the
local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely. With a
bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
http://tinyurl.com/cnun3
http://www.warwickshire.gov[…]25715a00348c12?OpenDocument
http://www.safespeedforlife.co.uk/[…]/Effects_of_Speed_cameras.pdf
http://www.independent.co.u[…]fore-they-crash-438975.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/[…]/breaking59.html
http://www.rsa.ie/[…]/
Speeding increases the probability of a collision, plus the severity of any resulting collision.
European Road Safety Laboratory
1 km/h increase in speed ? 3% increase in accidents
With links to the science
http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass X velocity ^2
This means that not only is thinking distance increased, but braking distances grow rapidly with speed, and impact severity is also increased.
This is Paul Smith, an hilariously deluded man who claimed to be a "road safety expert". He draws loads of pretty graphs on his website that "prove" that speed cameras kill people. He ran a forum where people called the police and traffic wardens "nazis" and fantasised about running over cyclists. He says that burning women to death for supporting speed cameras is a "mild reaction". He recommends using the addresses of dead people to avoid speeding tickets. Not funny at all really.
http://www.youtube.com/watc[…]amp;playnext=1&index=13
NOW DON`T FUMBLE IT BOYS.
Was this tongue -in-cheek? Smith trying to pervert the course of justice with his disgusting advice :
Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for the
local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely. With a
bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
http://tinyurl.com/cnun3
http://www.warwickshire.gov[…]25715a00348c12?OpenDocument
http://www.safespeedforlife.co.uk/[…]/Effects_of_Speed_cameras.pdf
http://www.independent.co.u[…]fore-they-crash-438975.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/[…]/breaking59.html
http://www.rsa.ie/[…]/
Speeding increases the probability of a collision, plus the severity of any resulting collision.
European Road Safety Laboratory
1 km/h increase in speed ? 3% increase in accidents
With links to the science
http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass X velocity ^2
This means that not only is thinking distance increased, but braking distances grow rapidly with speed, and impact severity is also increased.
This is Paul Smith, an hilariously deluded man who claimed to be a "road safety expert". He draws loads of pretty graphs on his website that "prove" that speed cameras kill people. He ran a forum where people called the police and traffic wardens "nazis" and fantasised about running over cyclists. He says that burning women to death for supporting speed cameras is a "mild reaction". He recommends using the addresses of dead people to avoid speeding tickets. Not funny at all really.
http://www.youtube.com/watc[…]amp;playnext=1&index=13
NOW DON`T FUMBLE IT BOYS.
Posted by
gbell
July 08, 2010 at 20:12
OK, here’s my belated reply to ASENNA’s cut and paste postings, starting with the alleged ‘death threats’ to Brake founder Mary Williams.
I can tell you categorically that Spectator article is rubbish, because I used to write for the PistonHeads website when this happened, so I know all about it. It all stems from some tongue-in-cheek comments made on the public forum. When Mary Williams got all hysterical and complained to the police they looked into it and instantly dismissed the ‘death threats’ as exactly what they were – bad jokes.
As for the quoted research into the effects of speed on road safety, well I can play that game too. Here’s a few extracts from a report published by the Cato Institute in US into the effects of RAISING speed limits in the USA.
“But almost all measures of highway safety show improvement, not more deaths and injuries since 1995. Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997. In fact, in 1997 there were 66,000 fewer road injuries than in 1995, the year before the speed limits were raised. The injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled fell to its lowest level ever recorded in 1997.
There is plenty of statistical evidence from the states that higher speed limits have not corresponded with higher death rates. In Michigan, for example, the highway death rate fell to 1.6 percent (a -5.9 percent decline) the year after the speed limit was raised to 70 mph on highways.
Sometimes higher speeds are safer because they reflect the normal flow of traffic—what highway engineers call the “85th percentile” speed. This is the speed most drivers will maintain on a given stretch of road under normal conditions. When speed limits are set artificially low, tailgating, weaving and speed variance (the problem of some cars traveling significantly faster than others) make roads less safe.”
And here’s some snippets from another US report:
“Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.
The data collected during this study indicate that there are no benefits, either from a safety or operational point of view, from establishing speed limits less than the 85th percentile speed. This does not mean that all speed limits should be raised. Traffic and engineer investigations should be conducted to obtain an accurate measure of the speed distribution. Greater emphasis should be placed on using the 85th percentile speed in setting safe and reasonable speed limits.
Most traffic engineers believe that speed limits should be posted to reflect the maximum speed considered to be safe and reasonable by the majority of drivers using the roadway under favorable conditions.”
And how does all ASENNA’s much loved ‘slower is safer’ research explain how Germany can have a better road safety record than many countries having speed limits around half the 150mph routinely reached on Germany’s unrestricted autobahns?
One line quoted from TRL News says “Improvements in driver behaviour have the potential to cut these (accident) statistics dramatically”. Now I’d have agreed with that had it said ‘Improvements in driving standards have the potential to cut these statistics dramatically”.
Because far more accidents are down to bad driving than speeding – and of course plenty of people manage to drive badly without exceeding the speed limit. Not that so-called ‘safety cameras’ do anything about that.
As Paul Smith rightly used to say, it’s not speed but inappropriate speed that’s dangerous. Clearly there are lots of situations were driving fast IS dangerous (bad weather, built up areas etc) but equally there are lots of situations when you can drive fast perfectly safely.
As ASENNA is so keen on quoting other people I’ll finish by doing the same. ‘Speed is frequently looked upon as something dangerous in itself, but it is dangerous only if used in the wrong place or at the wrong time . . . the onus is always on the driver to select a speed appropriate to the conditions’. That’s a quote from the Hendon Method - the manual used to train police drivers.
I can tell you categorically that Spectator article is rubbish, because I used to write for the PistonHeads website when this happened, so I know all about it. It all stems from some tongue-in-cheek comments made on the public forum. When Mary Williams got all hysterical and complained to the police they looked into it and instantly dismissed the ‘death threats’ as exactly what they were – bad jokes.
As for the quoted research into the effects of speed on road safety, well I can play that game too. Here’s a few extracts from a report published by the Cato Institute in US into the effects of RAISING speed limits in the USA.
“But almost all measures of highway safety show improvement, not more deaths and injuries since 1995. Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997. In fact, in 1997 there were 66,000 fewer road injuries than in 1995, the year before the speed limits were raised. The injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled fell to its lowest level ever recorded in 1997.
There is plenty of statistical evidence from the states that higher speed limits have not corresponded with higher death rates. In Michigan, for example, the highway death rate fell to 1.6 percent (a -5.9 percent decline) the year after the speed limit was raised to 70 mph on highways.
Sometimes higher speeds are safer because they reflect the normal flow of traffic—what highway engineers call the “85th percentile” speed. This is the speed most drivers will maintain on a given stretch of road under normal conditions. When speed limits are set artificially low, tailgating, weaving and speed variance (the problem of some cars traveling significantly faster than others) make roads less safe.”
And here’s some snippets from another US report:
“Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.
The data collected during this study indicate that there are no benefits, either from a safety or operational point of view, from establishing speed limits less than the 85th percentile speed. This does not mean that all speed limits should be raised. Traffic and engineer investigations should be conducted to obtain an accurate measure of the speed distribution. Greater emphasis should be placed on using the 85th percentile speed in setting safe and reasonable speed limits.
Most traffic engineers believe that speed limits should be posted to reflect the maximum speed considered to be safe and reasonable by the majority of drivers using the roadway under favorable conditions.”
And how does all ASENNA’s much loved ‘slower is safer’ research explain how Germany can have a better road safety record than many countries having speed limits around half the 150mph routinely reached on Germany’s unrestricted autobahns?
One line quoted from TRL News says “Improvements in driver behaviour have the potential to cut these (accident) statistics dramatically”. Now I’d have agreed with that had it said ‘Improvements in driving standards have the potential to cut these statistics dramatically”.
Because far more accidents are down to bad driving than speeding – and of course plenty of people manage to drive badly without exceeding the speed limit. Not that so-called ‘safety cameras’ do anything about that.
As Paul Smith rightly used to say, it’s not speed but inappropriate speed that’s dangerous. Clearly there are lots of situations were driving fast IS dangerous (bad weather, built up areas etc) but equally there are lots of situations when you can drive fast perfectly safely.
As ASENNA is so keen on quoting other people I’ll finish by doing the same. ‘Speed is frequently looked upon as something dangerous in itself, but it is dangerous only if used in the wrong place or at the wrong time . . . the onus is always on the driver to select a speed appropriate to the conditions’. That’s a quote from the Hendon Method - the manual used to train police drivers.
Posted by
safesteve
July 08, 2010 at 23:34
Asenna,
You should digest your own link. The issue was nothing more than a legal query, as well as a comment about what someone else brought up, not "advice" as you wrongly described. Nice try!
Also, none of your post actually addressed the Mary Williams farce (which exists only in your head anyway), so it seems that one has been concluded too.
>>>”He draws loads of pretty graphs on his website that "prove" that speed cameras kill people.”
None of your links address my earlier links to you demonstrating the spin surrounding the effectiveness of cameras, as well as the “fatality gap” (one of the pretty graphs you mentioned).
Here it is again:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=214352#p214352
And where it comes from:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
>>>”He ran a forum where people called the police and traffic wardens "nazis"
Like that never happens in any other forum – right? Oddly, I thought campaign calls for a return to traffic police!! Remember, the opinion of posters in a forum need not reflect the aims of the hosting website. Some sites still value ‘freedom of speech’!
>>>”...and fantasised about running over cyclists.”
Riiiight! <shakes head and wonders if asenna is entirely sane>
While it is true that higher speed does result with greater severity assuming a collision occurred, it doesn't mean there is a greater possibility for a collision. It isn't right to consider a single factor in isolation. Several confounding factors must also be considered:
- Respect for law:
Needless restrictions inevitably encourages disobedience of them; unnecessarily low limits are no different, it devalues speed limits in general. Take motorways for example, these roads suffer the greatest rate of non-compliance (and hence highest traffic speeds) yet they remain the safest type of road.
What's the point of a law that encourages disobedience?
- Fatigue:
What would the effect be on motorway SRCs (sleep related crashes) if drivers were forced (by more enforcement) to go even slower than today's traffic speeds? Stats19 analysis shows that 19% of all motorway crashes are SRC related, that portions rising to 29-45% during the small hours (“Road Safety Research Report No. 52, Sleep-Related Crashes on Sections of Different Road Types in the UK (1995–2001)” ). The portion suffering SRC related accidents is obviously MUCH greater than the portion of accidents where a driver was in excess of the limit. All else equal: would enforcing motorway drivers to go slower still, meaning less stimulation for a longer time duration (a double whammy!!) end up worsening the overall accident rate? Should we not review the critical speed limits first before launching into an enforced speed scheme?
- Displacement:
A reasonable setting of say motorway (safest type of road) speed limits will result with a displacement of traffic away from less safe environments. Even if it was true that the casualty rate on the motorways subsequently increased (don't forget the fatigue) there could well be less casualties overall as there is overall less chance of it occurring anyway.
- Judgement:
Erosion of the critical driver skill of being able to judge a safe speed for themselves. Needlessly low limits result with drivers automatically using, and hence eventually relying upon, the number in roundel as their only guide for speed.
Right now, a great way to stop 'speeding' is to set limits to end the needless criminalisation of safe and considerate drivers. The general population understands this, yet again you seem to gloss over this simple fact; you're still out touch with public opinion – so who is the one who is “deluded”?
You should digest your own link. The issue was nothing more than a legal query, as well as a comment about what someone else brought up, not "advice" as you wrongly described. Nice try!
Also, none of your post actually addressed the Mary Williams farce (which exists only in your head anyway), so it seems that one has been concluded too.
>>>”He draws loads of pretty graphs on his website that "prove" that speed cameras kill people.”
None of your links address my earlier links to you demonstrating the spin surrounding the effectiveness of cameras, as well as the “fatality gap” (one of the pretty graphs you mentioned).
Here it is again:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=214352#p214352
And where it comes from:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
>>>”He ran a forum where people called the police and traffic wardens "nazis"
Like that never happens in any other forum – right? Oddly, I thought campaign calls for a return to traffic police!! Remember, the opinion of posters in a forum need not reflect the aims of the hosting website. Some sites still value ‘freedom of speech’!
>>>”...and fantasised about running over cyclists.”
Riiiight! <shakes head and wonders if asenna is entirely sane>
While it is true that higher speed does result with greater severity assuming a collision occurred, it doesn't mean there is a greater possibility for a collision. It isn't right to consider a single factor in isolation. Several confounding factors must also be considered:
- Respect for law:
Needless restrictions inevitably encourages disobedience of them; unnecessarily low limits are no different, it devalues speed limits in general. Take motorways for example, these roads suffer the greatest rate of non-compliance (and hence highest traffic speeds) yet they remain the safest type of road.
What's the point of a law that encourages disobedience?
- Fatigue:
What would the effect be on motorway SRCs (sleep related crashes) if drivers were forced (by more enforcement) to go even slower than today's traffic speeds? Stats19 analysis shows that 19% of all motorway crashes are SRC related, that portions rising to 29-45% during the small hours (“Road Safety Research Report No. 52, Sleep-Related Crashes on Sections of Different Road Types in the UK (1995–2001)” ). The portion suffering SRC related accidents is obviously MUCH greater than the portion of accidents where a driver was in excess of the limit. All else equal: would enforcing motorway drivers to go slower still, meaning less stimulation for a longer time duration (a double whammy!!) end up worsening the overall accident rate? Should we not review the critical speed limits first before launching into an enforced speed scheme?
- Displacement:
A reasonable setting of say motorway (safest type of road) speed limits will result with a displacement of traffic away from less safe environments. Even if it was true that the casualty rate on the motorways subsequently increased (don't forget the fatigue) there could well be less casualties overall as there is overall less chance of it occurring anyway.
- Judgement:
Erosion of the critical driver skill of being able to judge a safe speed for themselves. Needlessly low limits result with drivers automatically using, and hence eventually relying upon, the number in roundel as their only guide for speed.
Right now, a great way to stop 'speeding' is to set limits to end the needless criminalisation of safe and considerate drivers. The general population understands this, yet again you seem to gloss over this simple fact; you're still out touch with public opinion – so who is the one who is “deluded”?
Posted by
ASENNA
July 09, 2010 at 09:38
"None of your links address my earlier links to you demonstrating the spin surrounding the effectiveness of cameras, as well as the “fatality gap:
http://www.pacts.org.uk/docs/pdf-bank/todaycameras.pdf
And I repeat:
"A trend is simply a movement in a general direction. Trends are not constant , continuous or necessarily permanent . All trends tend to level out in time. The charlatan Smith produced a graph which showed that he believed if speed cameras had never been introduced then there would not have been a single fatality by 2035. That is how much of a nutter he was."
You have produced the same graph. Just continue the graph for about 20 years and see all road deaths magically disappear. Magic indeed , or a devious abuse of statistics ! It is without doubt one of the most absurd graphs i have ever seen. Correlation does not imply causation. When Smithy was asked by the magazine Accident Analysis and Prevention to provide the data for his daft graph and conclusions from it for publication he ran a mile and needed a change of underpants.Prof. Mervyn concluded there was no evidence to support the graph.Even the great fraud admitted just before he snuffed it that it was based on his opinion and experience of driving.
Did you know , using another example of the fatality gap "logic" :
As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream causes drowning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/[…]/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
http://www.pacts.org.uk/docs/pdf-bank/todaycameras.pdf
And I repeat:
"A trend is simply a movement in a general direction. Trends are not constant , continuous or necessarily permanent . All trends tend to level out in time. The charlatan Smith produced a graph which showed that he believed if speed cameras had never been introduced then there would not have been a single fatality by 2035. That is how much of a nutter he was."
You have produced the same graph. Just continue the graph for about 20 years and see all road deaths magically disappear. Magic indeed , or a devious abuse of statistics ! It is without doubt one of the most absurd graphs i have ever seen. Correlation does not imply causation. When Smithy was asked by the magazine Accident Analysis and Prevention to provide the data for his daft graph and conclusions from it for publication he ran a mile and needed a change of underpants.Prof. Mervyn concluded there was no evidence to support the graph.Even the great fraud admitted just before he snuffed it that it was based on his opinion and experience of driving.
Did you know , using another example of the fatality gap "logic" :
As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream causes drowning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/[…]/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 09, 2010 at 10:06
"Did you know , using another example of the fatality gap "logic" :
As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream causes drowning."
You could get a job at a Safety Camera Partnership, that's the kind of logic they use. That's if they were recruiting at the moment :-)
"There's an accident blackspot on a tight bend with trees overhead meaning the road is suddenly dark and usually damp. Then there's a long hill with a climbing lane half a mile ahead. Let's put a speed camera on the climbing lane."
As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream causes drowning."
You could get a job at a Safety Camera Partnership, that's the kind of logic they use. That's if they were recruiting at the moment :-)
"There's an accident blackspot on a tight bend with trees overhead meaning the road is suddenly dark and usually damp. Then there's a long hill with a climbing lane half a mile ahead. Let's put a speed camera on the climbing lane."
Posted by
safesteve
July 09, 2010 at 11:50
>>>"You have produced the same graph. Just continue the graph for about 20 years and see all road deaths magically disappear. Magic indeed , or a devious abuse of statistics !"
DID YOU ACTUALLY DIGEST THE THREAD I LINKED ?!?
I have to shout because this obviously isn't getting through to you.
The Y-axis is logarithmic, there is no zero; that curve will never reach zero.
Use of this type of axis is normal when plotting logarithmic curves; they come out as straight lines and you can see resolution at the lower part of the curve – ask any genuinely decent mathematician to confirm that.
There is no abuse, only a lack of understanding of simple maths on your part.
Look again at the Y-axis and tell us exactly where the zero is – you’ll get a Nobel Prize if you did!
Do you want to try again? Read the thread this time:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=214352#p214352
Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000, then suddenly and significantly diverts in a negative direction – for what reason? If cameras were having no effect at all then something has obviously gone disastrously wrong with our road safety policy. Now surely if cameras were having a positive effect then something else must have gone 'doomsday' wrong - what could that be? Or maybe, cameras have replaced traffic police and has wrongly skewed priorities?
slipdegarcon amplifies my RTTM point rather well. So again I say: I guess you will attacking SCP claims with the same vigour – their correlation doesn’t imply their causation, right?
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
DID YOU ACTUALLY DIGEST THE THREAD I LINKED ?!?
I have to shout because this obviously isn't getting through to you.
The Y-axis is logarithmic, there is no zero; that curve will never reach zero.
Use of this type of axis is normal when plotting logarithmic curves; they come out as straight lines and you can see resolution at the lower part of the curve – ask any genuinely decent mathematician to confirm that.
There is no abuse, only a lack of understanding of simple maths on your part.
Look again at the Y-axis and tell us exactly where the zero is – you’ll get a Nobel Prize if you did!
Do you want to try again? Read the thread this time:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=214352#p214352
Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000, then suddenly and significantly diverts in a negative direction – for what reason? If cameras were having no effect at all then something has obviously gone disastrously wrong with our road safety policy. Now surely if cameras were having a positive effect then something else must have gone 'doomsday' wrong - what could that be? Or maybe, cameras have replaced traffic police and has wrongly skewed priorities?
slipdegarcon amplifies my RTTM point rather well. So again I say: I guess you will attacking SCP claims with the same vigour – their correlation doesn’t imply their causation, right?
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
Posted by
NHSoul
July 09, 2010 at 14:44
Speaking as someone who sees the aftermath of road accidents, the almost obsessive quest to target speed and demonise it as the major cause or factor in accidents is not only misleading but worse still it is NOT getting the truly dangerous drivers!
I've lost count of the number of people I have personally known who have had an impeccable lifelong driving record yet have in recent years been caught in what can only be described as the ultimate victimless crime.
The message it sends out that somehow if you are not speeding then you are a good safe driver is not only deceptive, it’s positively dangerous!
Punishing safe drivers for an act which wasn't in fact dangerous at the time, place and prevailing circumstances is NOT addressing the real issue of road safety.
It is quite simply delusional to think that if you had 100% compliance of all speed limits you could expect to see the accident rate drop like a stone.
If only it were that simple...
I've lost count of the number of people I have personally known who have had an impeccable lifelong driving record yet have in recent years been caught in what can only be described as the ultimate victimless crime.
The message it sends out that somehow if you are not speeding then you are a good safe driver is not only deceptive, it’s positively dangerous!
Punishing safe drivers for an act which wasn't in fact dangerous at the time, place and prevailing circumstances is NOT addressing the real issue of road safety.
It is quite simply delusional to think that if you had 100% compliance of all speed limits you could expect to see the accident rate drop like a stone.
If only it were that simple...
Posted by
bhtarr
July 09, 2010 at 17:29
I've been driving for 36 years now and have covered well over a million miles in that time. Frankly, the standard of driving in the UK is at an all time low, NOT because of speeding motorists but motorists who seem to think that by sticking rigidly to a speed limit or below it, they can throw every other thing that they ever learnt or any other highway code rule, out of the window.
The death rate has gone down every year, admitedly but if you compare the percentage drop per decade say in the seventies and eighties, the percentage drop then was far higher (in the fifty percent range compared to being in the 40percent range now) than in the last decade when we have been so dependant on speed cameras and the "speedkills" so drive slow and drive "safe" message.
Deaths have come down due to better medical techniques, Air ambulances and safer cars but nothing copmared to the percentage drops that we have experienced in earlier decades when speed limits were higher and drivers more aware.
The death rate has gone down every year, admitedly but if you compare the percentage drop per decade say in the seventies and eighties, the percentage drop then was far higher (in the fifty percent range compared to being in the 40percent range now) than in the last decade when we have been so dependant on speed cameras and the "speedkills" so drive slow and drive "safe" message.
Deaths have come down due to better medical techniques, Air ambulances and safer cars but nothing copmared to the percentage drops that we have experienced in earlier decades when speed limits were higher and drivers more aware.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 09, 2010 at 17:43
Posted by safesteve July 09, 2010 at 11:50AM
"I have to shout because this obviously isn't getting through to you.
The Y-axis is logarithmic, there is no zero; that curve will never reach zero."
All trends tend to level out over time therefore no conclusions can be drawn from a graph that does exactly that. Prof. Mervyn Stone for a radio 4 investigation entirely rejected Smiths interpretation of road fatalities. Smith himself refused offers of publication of his data as he knew this would mean peer review and humiliation for him.
".Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000"
Utter drivel and pseudoscience.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/humpfinal.pdf
http://www.rss.org.uk/[…]/3952_Rune%20Elvik%20paper.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/[…]/speedcameras2_20040624.shtml
http://www.rsa.ie/[…]/
http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
"I have to shout because this obviously isn't getting through to you.
The Y-axis is logarithmic, there is no zero; that curve will never reach zero."
All trends tend to level out over time therefore no conclusions can be drawn from a graph that does exactly that. Prof. Mervyn Stone for a radio 4 investigation entirely rejected Smiths interpretation of road fatalities. Smith himself refused offers of publication of his data as he knew this would mean peer review and humiliation for him.
".Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000"
Utter drivel and pseudoscience.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/humpfinal.pdf
http://www.rss.org.uk/[…]/3952_Rune%20Elvik%20paper.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/[…]/speedcameras2_20040624.shtml
http://www.rsa.ie/[…]/
http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
Posted by
ASENNA
July 09, 2010 at 17:55
"It is quite simply delusional to think that if you had 100% compliance of all speed limits you could expect to see the accident rate drop like a stone."
No one claims any such thing.
"The message it sends out that somehow if you are not speeding then you are a good safe driver is not only deceptive, it’s positively dangerous!"
No such message is sent out or received by any rational human being.
" but nothing copmared to the percentage drops that we have experienced in earlier decades when speed limits were higher and drivers more aware."
In earlier decades we had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc etc or did they pass you by. In this golden age when speeds were higher deaths were higher.
In the meantime i have yet to come across any town , village , residential area or street where people are demanding that the vehicles outside there houses should go faster.
No one claims any such thing.
"The message it sends out that somehow if you are not speeding then you are a good safe driver is not only deceptive, it’s positively dangerous!"
No such message is sent out or received by any rational human being.
" but nothing copmared to the percentage drops that we have experienced in earlier decades when speed limits were higher and drivers more aware."
In earlier decades we had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc etc or did they pass you by. In this golden age when speeds were higher deaths were higher.
In the meantime i have yet to come across any town , village , residential area or street where people are demanding that the vehicles outside there houses should go faster.
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 09, 2010 at 21:25
Posted by ASENNA July 09, 2010 at 05:55PM
"It is quite simply delusional to think that if you had 100% compliance of all speed limits you could expect to see the accident rate drop like a stone."
No one claims any such thing.
- But that is exacply the hypothesis enshrined in the "Speed Kills" mantra which is the only plank of the present Road Safety policy -
"The message it sends out that somehow if you are not speeding then you are a good safe driver is not only deceptive, it’s positively dangerous!"
No such message is sent out or received by any rational human being.
- Of course no rational person would suggest that, but by concentrating on only one factor, the speed limit, that is the message that is transmitted. The message is, drive at 29mph and you are safe, drive at 31mph and you are dangerous -
" but nothing copmared to the percentage drops that we have experienced in earlier decades when speed limits were higher and drivers more aware."
In earlier decades we had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc etc or did they pass you by. In this golden age when speeds were higher deaths were higher.
- and there is a demonstrable causal link to justify seat beats and alcohol. Other than at the extremes "inappropriate speed", there is no demonstrated causal link -
In the meantime i have yet to come across any town , village , residential area or street where people are demanding that the vehicles outside there houses should go faster.
- Meaningless -
Dear Asenna
My objective is safer roads and the eradication of corruption in the courts.
Sorry if you object to that but your objections will not stop me.
"It is quite simply delusional to think that if you had 100% compliance of all speed limits you could expect to see the accident rate drop like a stone."
No one claims any such thing.
- But that is exacply the hypothesis enshrined in the "Speed Kills" mantra which is the only plank of the present Road Safety policy -
"The message it sends out that somehow if you are not speeding then you are a good safe driver is not only deceptive, it’s positively dangerous!"
No such message is sent out or received by any rational human being.
- Of course no rational person would suggest that, but by concentrating on only one factor, the speed limit, that is the message that is transmitted. The message is, drive at 29mph and you are safe, drive at 31mph and you are dangerous -
" but nothing copmared to the percentage drops that we have experienced in earlier decades when speed limits were higher and drivers more aware."
In earlier decades we had seat belt legislation , the breathalyser etc etc or did they pass you by. In this golden age when speeds were higher deaths were higher.
- and there is a demonstrable causal link to justify seat beats and alcohol. Other than at the extremes "inappropriate speed", there is no demonstrated causal link -
In the meantime i have yet to come across any town , village , residential area or street where people are demanding that the vehicles outside there houses should go faster.
- Meaningless -
Dear Asenna
My objective is safer roads and the eradication of corruption in the courts.
Sorry if you object to that but your objections will not stop me.
Posted by
safesteve
July 09, 2010 at 21:57
>>>"All trends tend to level out over time therefore no conclusions can be drawn from a graph that does exactly that"
Nope! You can think of it as being like a 'half-life' of radioactive material - that never levels out does it? Oh wait, you probably think it does!
If you zoom in on a latter part of an exponential curve, you will find it is the same shape as the earlier part; strictly speaking, the gradient remains in proportion to the value - this is fact. Also, this is what we saw until 2000.
For the time period between 1950 to 2000, we have benefited from reduction of casualties (accounting for net distance travelled) in proportion to the prior value of about 5-8%, then it abruptly fell to 2% at about 2000. The SCPs started forming at that time; what else happened?
We don't expect a levelling out of road casualties because the ongoing improvements to reduce casualties are still ongoing: cars are always being designed to be safer, roads are being re-engineered to be safer, etc.
Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000
>>>"Utter drivel and pseudoscience."
Do you deny the validity of the curve given within that graph?
Do you deny there was an abrupt and significant deviation from a mathematically consistent trend that lasted a good 50 years?
If so (for either) then please explain why.
You quoting of random links in an attempt to refute do your argument no favour – in fact it backfired.
Link 1 does discuss, but doesn't reject, the fatality gap. See my prior comment about "disastrously " and "doomsday" to understand why this issue is so telling. That's an own goal on your part!
Links 2, 4 & 5 glosses over the factors I gave earlier - the: respect, displacement, fatigue and judgement. I repeat: increasing the speed limits on safer roads (such as motorways) could well result with an overall reduction of casualties on the road network. That's why I cannot take those seriously.
Link 3 is brilliant. It perfectly corroborates what we have been saying about the claims of camera effectiveness - the abuse of statistics by those promoting speed cameras.
*"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "*
Didn't I just say that to you? It seems high profile people were actually agreeing with at least some of Paul Smith's arguments – everyone in the world must be 'delusional' and 'a crank' – right?
So I say for the third time: will you be chasing down SCP claims with the same vigour? I think we all know the answer to that.
Tell us spidrift: given your evasion, obvious bias and clear lack of understanding of the maths, why on earth should anyone take you seriously?
I hear another SCP might be wound up!!!
Nope! You can think of it as being like a 'half-life' of radioactive material - that never levels out does it? Oh wait, you probably think it does!
If you zoom in on a latter part of an exponential curve, you will find it is the same shape as the earlier part; strictly speaking, the gradient remains in proportion to the value - this is fact. Also, this is what we saw until 2000.
For the time period between 1950 to 2000, we have benefited from reduction of casualties (accounting for net distance travelled) in proportion to the prior value of about 5-8%, then it abruptly fell to 2% at about 2000. The SCPs started forming at that time; what else happened?
We don't expect a levelling out of road casualties because the ongoing improvements to reduce casualties are still ongoing: cars are always being designed to be safer, roads are being re-engineered to be safer, etc.
Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000
>>>"Utter drivel and pseudoscience."
Do you deny the validity of the curve given within that graph?
Do you deny there was an abrupt and significant deviation from a mathematically consistent trend that lasted a good 50 years?
If so (for either) then please explain why.
You quoting of random links in an attempt to refute do your argument no favour – in fact it backfired.
Link 1 does discuss, but doesn't reject, the fatality gap. See my prior comment about "disastrously " and "doomsday" to understand why this issue is so telling. That's an own goal on your part!
Links 2, 4 & 5 glosses over the factors I gave earlier - the: respect, displacement, fatigue and judgement. I repeat: increasing the speed limits on safer roads (such as motorways) could well result with an overall reduction of casualties on the road network. That's why I cannot take those seriously.
Link 3 is brilliant. It perfectly corroborates what we have been saying about the claims of camera effectiveness - the abuse of statistics by those promoting speed cameras.
*"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "*
Didn't I just say that to you? It seems high profile people were actually agreeing with at least some of Paul Smith's arguments – everyone in the world must be 'delusional' and 'a crank' – right?
So I say for the third time: will you be chasing down SCP claims with the same vigour? I think we all know the answer to that.
Tell us spidrift: given your evasion, obvious bias and clear lack of understanding of the maths, why on earth should anyone take you seriously?
I hear another SCP might be wound up!!!
Posted by
ASENNA
July 10, 2010 at 07:31
"Link 3 is brilliant. It perfectly corroborates what we have been saying about the claims of camera effectiveness"
The report by Professor Mervyn Stone of University College London, supports the official view that cameras do save
lives.
Prof Stone says that better-conducted studies from Wales and Norway clearly show that cameras can save many lives...
He wants speed cameras hidden .Apparently you believe ,that " perfectly corroborates what we have been saying about the claims of camera effectiveness"
"Link 1 does discuss, but doesn't reject, the fatality gap"
Oh yes it does.
He says there is "no evidence" for it. Read page 7. Care to name a single academic publication where your claims about the fatality gap appear ? You would think that medical journals and the like would be lining up to publish such a sensational claim. But no , why not ?.
"We don't expect a levelling out of road casualties because the ongoing improvements to reduce casualties are still ongoing: cars are always being designed to be safer, roads are being re-engineered to be safer, etc."
Its you that does not understand the maths. You are saying that if it were not for the introduction of speed cameras , then road fatalities would fall year on year in a constant , continuous , permanent , predictable downward projection. If this were to have happened we would indeed reach a glorious point in about 30 years time of virtual zero deaths. Your so called " logarithmic" graph is a devious piece of nonsense.
Here is a rather more honestly daft effort from the Association of Bonkers Drivers . Sadly ,they also record a blue line of vehicle usage on it but appear too stupid to realise they have shot themselves in the foot by doing so.
http://www.abd.org.uk/
As you can see they are predicting zero road deaths by about 2035. You would need to be mad to take such " evidence " seriously. Like you they base their belief on a downward trend that cannot and will never level out. Your comparison of your graph of human activity to the mathematical preciseness of radioactive decay is a mixture of arrogance and total misunderstanding.
The fatality rate per billion km is still falling, and the rate of which it has been falling has changed slowly over time, leading to a smooth curve.In fact, it appears that we are approaching an irreducible minimum in the fatality rate per billion km. This is in fact exactly what we would expect.Or what people who live in the real world would expect.
The report by Professor Mervyn Stone of University College London, supports the official view that cameras do save
lives.
Prof Stone says that better-conducted studies from Wales and Norway clearly show that cameras can save many lives...
He wants speed cameras hidden .Apparently you believe ,that " perfectly corroborates what we have been saying about the claims of camera effectiveness"
"Link 1 does discuss, but doesn't reject, the fatality gap"
Oh yes it does.
He says there is "no evidence" for it. Read page 7. Care to name a single academic publication where your claims about the fatality gap appear ? You would think that medical journals and the like would be lining up to publish such a sensational claim. But no , why not ?.
"We don't expect a levelling out of road casualties because the ongoing improvements to reduce casualties are still ongoing: cars are always being designed to be safer, roads are being re-engineered to be safer, etc."
Its you that does not understand the maths. You are saying that if it were not for the introduction of speed cameras , then road fatalities would fall year on year in a constant , continuous , permanent , predictable downward projection. If this were to have happened we would indeed reach a glorious point in about 30 years time of virtual zero deaths. Your so called " logarithmic" graph is a devious piece of nonsense.
Here is a rather more honestly daft effort from the Association of Bonkers Drivers . Sadly ,they also record a blue line of vehicle usage on it but appear too stupid to realise they have shot themselves in the foot by doing so.
http://www.abd.org.uk/
As you can see they are predicting zero road deaths by about 2035. You would need to be mad to take such " evidence " seriously. Like you they base their belief on a downward trend that cannot and will never level out. Your comparison of your graph of human activity to the mathematical preciseness of radioactive decay is a mixture of arrogance and total misunderstanding.
The fatality rate per billion km is still falling, and the rate of which it has been falling has changed slowly over time, leading to a smooth curve.In fact, it appears that we are approaching an irreducible minimum in the fatality rate per billion km. This is in fact exactly what we would expect.Or what people who live in the real world would expect.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 10, 2010 at 07:39
http://www.abd.org.uk/
Needless to say on their dodgy website nothing is straightforward. You need to go to the speed cameras link and then the fatalities link to see their work of surreal art.
Posted by AitkenBrotherston July 09, 2010 at 09:25PM
You have posted a series of straw man arguments i will not be wasting my time on.
Needless to say on their dodgy website nothing is straightforward. You need to go to the speed cameras link and then the fatalities link to see their work of surreal art.
Posted by AitkenBrotherston July 09, 2010 at 09:25PM
You have posted a series of straw man arguments i will not be wasting my time on.
Posted by
credibilitygap
July 10, 2010 at 10:37
Posted by safesteve July 09, 2010 at 09:57PM
"For the time period between 1950 to 2000, we have benefited from reduction of casualties (accounting for net distance travelled) in proportion to the prior value of about 5-8%, then it abruptly fell to 2% at about 2000. The SCPs started forming at that time; what else happened?"
Suggest you have a look at motorbike deaths.
Motorbike sales increased by 36% in 1997 alone.The recent "loss of trend" in road fatalities seems to be connected to an increase in motorcycle ownership and use. In particular, there has been a big increase in the number of high-powered machines with an engine size of 500cc or above.
Motorcyclists in the UK make up less than 1% of vehicle traffic but their riders suffer 14% of total deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads.
Average motor bike deaths in 90`s ......467
583. ...2001
609 ...2002
693....2003
That increase alone makes a mockery of your fatality gap , unless you are suggesting cameras cause bikers to crash and die as if by magic. Should i point out to you their propensity for ignoring speed limits ?
The other factor is one you have been directed to but pointedly ignore. Fatalities whether from accidents or diseases tend to level off in time and do NOT continue at a constant rate. Suggest you take a look at mortality rates for lung cancer. During the 70s and 80s and into the 1990s , mortality rates improved due to better education , diagnosis and treatment. Now the rate of mortality is levelling off , it is not showing the big improvements of the years before.
Something gone wrong ? Blame the doctors or the NHS ? No , it is precisely what you would expect to happen. There is going to be a time when you reach a " base " level of mortality , a point when much smaller reductions are made despite the same amount of effort and resources being applied.
Your fatality gap is a natural phenomenon and proof of nothing much.
"For the time period between 1950 to 2000, we have benefited from reduction of casualties (accounting for net distance travelled) in proportion to the prior value of about 5-8%, then it abruptly fell to 2% at about 2000. The SCPs started forming at that time; what else happened?"
Suggest you have a look at motorbike deaths.
Motorbike sales increased by 36% in 1997 alone.The recent "loss of trend" in road fatalities seems to be connected to an increase in motorcycle ownership and use. In particular, there has been a big increase in the number of high-powered machines with an engine size of 500cc or above.
Motorcyclists in the UK make up less than 1% of vehicle traffic but their riders suffer 14% of total deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads.
Average motor bike deaths in 90`s ......467
583. ...2001
609 ...2002
693....2003
That increase alone makes a mockery of your fatality gap , unless you are suggesting cameras cause bikers to crash and die as if by magic. Should i point out to you their propensity for ignoring speed limits ?
The other factor is one you have been directed to but pointedly ignore. Fatalities whether from accidents or diseases tend to level off in time and do NOT continue at a constant rate. Suggest you take a look at mortality rates for lung cancer. During the 70s and 80s and into the 1990s , mortality rates improved due to better education , diagnosis and treatment. Now the rate of mortality is levelling off , it is not showing the big improvements of the years before.
Something gone wrong ? Blame the doctors or the NHS ? No , it is precisely what you would expect to happen. There is going to be a time when you reach a " base " level of mortality , a point when much smaller reductions are made despite the same amount of effort and resources being applied.
Your fatality gap is a natural phenomenon and proof of nothing much.
Posted by
safesteve
July 10, 2010 at 13:01
Link 1 indeed does corroborate what we’ve been saying. He accepts there has been an abuse of statistics. But there is more:
"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. " And that was only considering Regression To The Mean, not 'bias on selection’ (other independent safety measures applied at camera sites to further reduce the KSI count at camera sites)
Do you get it now?
So right there we have one good reason for the fatality gap.
Also, “cameras CAN save many lives” doesn’t mean they WOULD or DID.
As for the evidence for it: that was in 2004, where the deviation from trend was just emerging (could be viewed as a blip). Now we’re in 2010 where the deviation from trend is now a clear trend in itself - certainly not a blip.
>>>“You are saying that if it were not for the introduction of speed cameras , then road fatalities would fall year on year in a constant , continuous , permanent , predictable downward projection.”
If there is no weakening of ongoing improvements, then why should that not occur?
>>>“Your so called " logarithmic" graph is a devious piece of nonsense.”
So every engineer who has used a decibel scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel) to plot waveform intensity is relying on devious nonsense? Riiight!
Just because you don’t understand it, it doesn’t mean it is wrong. Did you check with a genuine mathematician?
>>>”in about 30 years time of virtual zero deaths”
The curve doesn’t show this. ‘Less than 1’ does not automatically mean 0. Do you know what decimals/fractions are? If the chart axis was extended downwards, the next horizontal line below the 100, 10 and 1 is 0.1 (one tenth).
>>>”You would think that medical journals and the like would be lining up to publish such a sensational claim.”
Perhaps they also think there is a 0 on a logarithmic axis LOL
>>>”Your comparison of your graph of human activity to the mathematical preciseness of radioactive decay is a mixture of arrogance and total misunderstanding.”
You are misrepresenting; I made no such comparison. I used the radioactive example to show how an exponential curve doesn’t actually level out and doesn’t suddenly cross zero. Nice try!
>>>”In fact, it appears that we are approaching an irreducible minimum in the fatality rate per billion km. This is in fact exactly what we would expect.Or what people who live in the real world would expect.”
So on the basis of your logic, any further improvements to car and road design wouldn’t make any difference? An absolute zero-tolerance of speeders/drinkers/druggers/phoners wouldn’t make any difference? Riiiight!
>>>” Suggest you have a look at motorbike deaths.”
That’s right, when your argument fails, cherry pick a part of it in an attempt to make your point. Let’s rip this apart too!
Did you really cherry pick a sample of only 3 years when I was talking about trends from 1950 to 2010? I mean, you showed a blip of 100 when we’re talking about a gap of ~1000, and even then your blip is probably temporary. Has biker deaths increased by 1000 per year from 2001 to 2010 (thus far, this is the only way you can account for it), or did you cherry pick a fluctuation? Lets see [table 1d: RCGB2008]:
2006 .... 599
2007 .... 588
2008 .... 493
All lower than your 2003? OOPS - there goes your theory! You did indeed cherry pick!
Nice to see you now accept the existence of the fatality gap, or will you back-pedal now that your argument has been shown to be disingenuous?
Confounding factors surrounding your lung cancer example:
We know the average UK vehicle (7-8 years old) is becoming ever saver. We also know roads are still being re-engineered to become ever safer. The continued messages against impaired driving are still sinking in.
Has there been the same consistent level of advancement in lung cancer prevention recently?
As people live longer (which we are) there is greater chance of succumbing to cancers. Did you account for the ageing UK population?
Road safety is bound by human decision and is not a “natural phenomenon”.
"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. " And that was only considering Regression To The Mean, not 'bias on selection’ (other independent safety measures applied at camera sites to further reduce the KSI count at camera sites)
Do you get it now?
So right there we have one good reason for the fatality gap.
Also, “cameras CAN save many lives” doesn’t mean they WOULD or DID.
As for the evidence for it: that was in 2004, where the deviation from trend was just emerging (could be viewed as a blip). Now we’re in 2010 where the deviation from trend is now a clear trend in itself - certainly not a blip.
>>>“You are saying that if it were not for the introduction of speed cameras , then road fatalities would fall year on year in a constant , continuous , permanent , predictable downward projection.”
If there is no weakening of ongoing improvements, then why should that not occur?
>>>“Your so called " logarithmic" graph is a devious piece of nonsense.”
So every engineer who has used a decibel scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel) to plot waveform intensity is relying on devious nonsense? Riiight!
Just because you don’t understand it, it doesn’t mean it is wrong. Did you check with a genuine mathematician?
>>>”in about 30 years time of virtual zero deaths”
The curve doesn’t show this. ‘Less than 1’ does not automatically mean 0. Do you know what decimals/fractions are? If the chart axis was extended downwards, the next horizontal line below the 100, 10 and 1 is 0.1 (one tenth).
>>>”You would think that medical journals and the like would be lining up to publish such a sensational claim.”
Perhaps they also think there is a 0 on a logarithmic axis LOL
>>>”Your comparison of your graph of human activity to the mathematical preciseness of radioactive decay is a mixture of arrogance and total misunderstanding.”
You are misrepresenting; I made no such comparison. I used the radioactive example to show how an exponential curve doesn’t actually level out and doesn’t suddenly cross zero. Nice try!
>>>”In fact, it appears that we are approaching an irreducible minimum in the fatality rate per billion km. This is in fact exactly what we would expect.Or what people who live in the real world would expect.”
So on the basis of your logic, any further improvements to car and road design wouldn’t make any difference? An absolute zero-tolerance of speeders/drinkers/druggers/phoners wouldn’t make any difference? Riiiight!
>>>” Suggest you have a look at motorbike deaths.”
That’s right, when your argument fails, cherry pick a part of it in an attempt to make your point. Let’s rip this apart too!
Did you really cherry pick a sample of only 3 years when I was talking about trends from 1950 to 2010? I mean, you showed a blip of 100 when we’re talking about a gap of ~1000, and even then your blip is probably temporary. Has biker deaths increased by 1000 per year from 2001 to 2010 (thus far, this is the only way you can account for it), or did you cherry pick a fluctuation? Lets see [table 1d: RCGB2008]:
2006 .... 599
2007 .... 588
2008 .... 493
All lower than your 2003? OOPS - there goes your theory! You did indeed cherry pick!
Nice to see you now accept the existence of the fatality gap, or will you back-pedal now that your argument has been shown to be disingenuous?
Confounding factors surrounding your lung cancer example:
We know the average UK vehicle (7-8 years old) is becoming ever saver. We also know roads are still being re-engineered to become ever safer. The continued messages against impaired driving are still sinking in.
Has there been the same consistent level of advancement in lung cancer prevention recently?
As people live longer (which we are) there is greater chance of succumbing to cancers. Did you account for the ageing UK population?
Road safety is bound by human decision and is not a “natural phenomenon”.
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 10, 2010 at 18:13
Funny how ASENNA's arguments fall apart when someone challenges them, isn't it?
The kinetic energy stuff will come out next....
The kinetic energy stuff will come out next....
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 10, 2010 at 21:11
Dear Asenna
" Posted by ASENNA July 10, 2010 at 07:39AM
Posted by AitkenBrotherston July 09, 2010 at 09:25PM
You have posted a series of straw man arguments i will not be wasting my time on."
True to form then, unable to win the argument so attack the person.
I am so glad to see you will not be bothering to respond.
" Posted by ASENNA July 10, 2010 at 07:39AM
Posted by AitkenBrotherston July 09, 2010 at 09:25PM
You have posted a series of straw man arguments i will not be wasting my time on."
True to form then, unable to win the argument so attack the person.
I am so glad to see you will not be bothering to respond.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 10, 2010 at 22:26
Posted by safesteve July 10, 2010 at 01:01PM
”You would think that medical journals and the like would be lining up to publish such a sensational claim.”
Perhaps they also think there is a 0 on a logarithmic axis LOL
A pitiful non sequitur of an answer , but then the question was a tricky one for you.
We know that when Smith was asked , he said "he had he not sought to publish his “data” in an academic journal; but he had actually been asked by the leading journal in the field – Accident Analysis and Prevention – to submit his work for review, and he had not taken up the offer. Why not? Because, he said, he didn't “ have time ”. He then went on to boast that he had spent 10,000 hours compiling his website.But he said he would seek to publish a peer-reviewed paper within six months. " He never did.
The claim you are making is sensational , that thousands of people have been killed and injured by speed cameras. The originator of this reeking heap of junk science and fevered speculation nearly shat himself at the prospect of handing over his data for independent peer review prior to publication. But there is nothing stopping you , send it here or the BMJ .
http://ees.elsevier.com/aap/
Better still send it off to The Royal Statistical Society Journal.
Until you do there is no reason why I or anyone else should take your claims seriously. If you can do what you claim, and can prove that speed cameras have killed people, then you owe it to the scientific community and, in fact, humanity, to publish your arguments in a refereed journal.
So what is stopping you ?
”You would think that medical journals and the like would be lining up to publish such a sensational claim.”
Perhaps they also think there is a 0 on a logarithmic axis LOL
A pitiful non sequitur of an answer , but then the question was a tricky one for you.
We know that when Smith was asked , he said "he had he not sought to publish his “data” in an academic journal; but he had actually been asked by the leading journal in the field – Accident Analysis and Prevention – to submit his work for review, and he had not taken up the offer. Why not? Because, he said, he didn't “ have time ”. He then went on to boast that he had spent 10,000 hours compiling his website.But he said he would seek to publish a peer-reviewed paper within six months. " He never did.
The claim you are making is sensational , that thousands of people have been killed and injured by speed cameras. The originator of this reeking heap of junk science and fevered speculation nearly shat himself at the prospect of handing over his data for independent peer review prior to publication. But there is nothing stopping you , send it here or the BMJ .
http://ees.elsevier.com/aap/
Better still send it off to The Royal Statistical Society Journal.
Until you do there is no reason why I or anyone else should take your claims seriously. If you can do what you claim, and can prove that speed cameras have killed people, then you owe it to the scientific community and, in fact, humanity, to publish your arguments in a refereed journal.
So what is stopping you ?
Posted by
ASENNA
July 11, 2010 at 05:44
Posted by slipdegarcon July 10, 2010 at 06:13PM
"Funny how ASENNA's arguments fall apart when someone challenges them, isn't it?"
YOUR COMMENT AS JOHNNYTHEBOY ON SAFESPEEDERS FORUM:
"The likes of ASENNA/Spiny are best beaten be weight of opinion rather than argument (IMHO)."
Classic , oh dear ,you could'nt make it up.
"Funny how ASENNA's arguments fall apart when someone challenges them, isn't it?"
YOUR COMMENT AS JOHNNYTHEBOY ON SAFESPEEDERS FORUM:
"The likes of ASENNA/Spiny are best beaten be weight of opinion rather than argument (IMHO)."
Classic , oh dear ,you could'nt make it up.
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 11, 2010 at 12:34
Dear Asenna
The only personal comment I have made is that when you cannot win the intellectual arument you resort to personal insults. An observation for which there is plenty of evidence.
Please point me to where I have described you as a an essential orifice for excreting human waste.
The only personal comment I have made is that when you cannot win the intellectual arument you resort to personal insults. An observation for which there is plenty of evidence.
Please point me to where I have described you as a an essential orifice for excreting human waste.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 11, 2010 at 17:52
Posted by AitkenBrotherston
" Please point me to where I have described you as a an essential orifice for excreting human waste."
You have jumped to the wrong conclusion . There is a thread started about my good self on the Crapspeed website forums in response to the post you started. One of the zealots there has described me as such , which of course has left me in a state of shock and in need in counselling. As you are clearly a gentleman , i would never attribute such coarseness to you.
By the way the anus is not essential orifice , many people of course with bowel cancer have it removed and some have their whole bowel removed.It only causes a problem to Crapspeed members who have nothing to talk out of afterwards.
" Please point me to where I have described you as a an essential orifice for excreting human waste."
You have jumped to the wrong conclusion . There is a thread started about my good self on the Crapspeed website forums in response to the post you started. One of the zealots there has described me as such , which of course has left me in a state of shock and in need in counselling. As you are clearly a gentleman , i would never attribute such coarseness to you.
By the way the anus is not essential orifice , many people of course with bowel cancer have it removed and some have their whole bowel removed.It only causes a problem to Crapspeed members who have nothing to talk out of afterwards.
Posted by
safesteve
July 11, 2010 at 19:08
>>>"A pitiful non sequitur of an answer "
Actually, I was giving you a well-deserved tease! Have you figured out where the zero on a log chart is yet? Or are you going to try to divert from your inadequate understanding of maths? <sigh>
I don't know the answer as I'm not one of those folks (as for the BMJ: fatalities and policy is beyond the remit of those concerned with the suffering and *MEDICAL* issues).
If you consider it for a moment, there is a surprising lack of journals on the subject of RTTM www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html (which is proven and is more than significant) and 'bias on selection' which is logically obvious and possibly as significant as RTTM.
This whole subject area does seem to be a bit of a hot potato!
Your "he didn't 'have time' ... 10,000 hours" is a non-sequiture. One aspect of that is concerned with the past; the other the future.
This is a question of balancing opportunities against benefits, and urgency against importance. It was Paul’s judgement that he should not abandon day to day work to prepare papers for publication because other things have been more urgent and important to the campaign objectives.
>>>“he never did”
Of course, we all know there were health issues for which Paul Smith eventually succumbed to (Jan 08). You are trying to capitalise on this, attacking someone you know now cannot do the work or defend himself; that’s a really sick tactic!
Looks Like I have to amplify a previous point to you: can you really not see your continued hypocrisy here?
Which group should be the one to have their work peer-reviewed: the one who made the original claims of effectiveness, whose claims affects policy, who have an enviable revenue stream and hence have great resource at their disposal to do so; a campaign group who has demonstrated fallacies and confounding factors of the work of the other group. That not really tricky to answer, but you seem to be giving illogical responses!
I again ask: why do you seek to ask for peer-review of those who can show the work of others are fallacious and also not peer-reviewed, while not asking that the original fallacious claims be reviewed? Three times I asked you - three times you evaded.
>>>"Until you do there is no reason why I or anyone else should take your claims seriously."
Errrm: are really going to outright completely ignore all the simple, reasonable and logical arguments which we just discussed (that you just so happened to fail to refute), simply because it hasn't been peer-reviewed? Riiiight!
In that case, Will you retract and dismiss all claims from the DfT, SCPs, Brake (et al), BBC, etc - which practically encompasses all the links you gave ?
Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’? Are your posts peer reviewed? If not then why should anyone take you seriously? (reductio ad absurdum).
No, it is obvious that the only reason you don't want to accept our arguments is because your own bias prevents you from doing so and you're desperately trying to disguise that by using the distraction of peer-review – shame that your hypocrisy has exposed you!
Added to that, the peer-review process is not the be-all and and-all you try to portray it as. Look what "peer review" did for Darwin and Harrison go get an idea of the level of work required to address the framework.
>>>"The claim you are making is sensational , that thousands of people have been killed and injured by speed cameras."
There are two facets to this.
Your own source gave "That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "
Do you not understand the term "damaged road safety"?
Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
This is the third time I've thrown this back at you - will you evade yet again?
Additional to that are the other negative side effects of speed cameras:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf
Actually, I was giving you a well-deserved tease! Have you figured out where the zero on a log chart is yet? Or are you going to try to divert from your inadequate understanding of maths? <sigh>
I don't know the answer as I'm not one of those folks (as for the BMJ: fatalities and policy is beyond the remit of those concerned with the suffering and *MEDICAL* issues).
If you consider it for a moment, there is a surprising lack of journals on the subject of RTTM www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html (which is proven and is more than significant) and 'bias on selection' which is logically obvious and possibly as significant as RTTM.
This whole subject area does seem to be a bit of a hot potato!
Your "he didn't 'have time' ... 10,000 hours" is a non-sequiture. One aspect of that is concerned with the past; the other the future.
This is a question of balancing opportunities against benefits, and urgency against importance. It was Paul’s judgement that he should not abandon day to day work to prepare papers for publication because other things have been more urgent and important to the campaign objectives.
>>>“he never did”
Of course, we all know there were health issues for which Paul Smith eventually succumbed to (Jan 08). You are trying to capitalise on this, attacking someone you know now cannot do the work or defend himself; that’s a really sick tactic!
Looks Like I have to amplify a previous point to you: can you really not see your continued hypocrisy here?
Which group should be the one to have their work peer-reviewed: the one who made the original claims of effectiveness, whose claims affects policy, who have an enviable revenue stream and hence have great resource at their disposal to do so; a campaign group who has demonstrated fallacies and confounding factors of the work of the other group. That not really tricky to answer, but you seem to be giving illogical responses!
I again ask: why do you seek to ask for peer-review of those who can show the work of others are fallacious and also not peer-reviewed, while not asking that the original fallacious claims be reviewed? Three times I asked you - three times you evaded.
>>>"Until you do there is no reason why I or anyone else should take your claims seriously."
Errrm: are really going to outright completely ignore all the simple, reasonable and logical arguments which we just discussed (that you just so happened to fail to refute), simply because it hasn't been peer-reviewed? Riiiight!
In that case, Will you retract and dismiss all claims from the DfT, SCPs, Brake (et al), BBC, etc - which practically encompasses all the links you gave ?
Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’? Are your posts peer reviewed? If not then why should anyone take you seriously? (reductio ad absurdum).
No, it is obvious that the only reason you don't want to accept our arguments is because your own bias prevents you from doing so and you're desperately trying to disguise that by using the distraction of peer-review – shame that your hypocrisy has exposed you!
Added to that, the peer-review process is not the be-all and and-all you try to portray it as. Look what "peer review" did for Darwin and Harrison go get an idea of the level of work required to address the framework.
>>>"The claim you are making is sensational , that thousands of people have been killed and injured by speed cameras."
There are two facets to this.
Your own source gave "That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "
Do you not understand the term "damaged road safety"?
Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
This is the third time I've thrown this back at you - will you evade yet again?
Additional to that are the other negative side effects of speed cameras:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 11, 2010 at 20:45
Dear Asenna
In a response to one of my posts you likened it to a pejorative expletive about you.
Please direct me to my comment about you that was “like” the comment to which you made reference.
By the way I am very well aware of the effects of bowel cancer and the dificulties it presents.
In a response to one of my posts you likened it to a pejorative expletive about you.
Please direct me to my comment about you that was “like” the comment to which you made reference.
By the way I am very well aware of the effects of bowel cancer and the dificulties it presents.
Posted by
SafeSpeed
July 12, 2010 at 02:20
When we consider that a good safe road user is our best road safety asset, it is no wonder then that enforcement cameras have done nothing for road safety.
Take into account the 85th %ile, RTTM, selection on bias and even a basic understanding of human psychology, will all help 'one' to appreciate that proper or intelligent road safety is not possible with any 'quick fix'.
Paul spent years pouring over stats and studied and produced a massive and top quality website that many find difficult to fully comprehend due to it's depth of math and physics and law.
Paul died doing what he believed in. He had the Government on the run by just using his brain and a laptop, when did you ever manage to achieve such a task ?
This can only be achieved through the truth and hard facts.
You still try to condemn my Safe Speed Forums, by quoting comments mostly from members of the public. perhaps some of those comments were yours?
Perhaps if the mods here would care to provide me with all your IP addresses I can check ?
The Safe Speed forums are open to the public with free speech talking place, so quoting comments by the public just makes you look desperate. The forums are separate to Safe Speed which has it's 'voice' as the main website and PR output. You will not find any of the 'so-called' comments by Paul that you mention on there.
Your comments are shameful and disgusting. I am further disgusted that the moderators here, have so far failed to removed all your slanderous comments.
Asenna IMO you are on the verge of obsessive harassment, your distaste for my late partner is sorry to see, and I feel sorry for you, and sad that you cannot see the clear facts and figures that he so carefully and intelligently collated and portrayed.
You resort to personal attacks in the hope that you might damage his good name, and perhaps upset me too, but in doing so you just damage your own name.
Have you yet read and understood :
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speed.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/ten.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
When you have I'd be delighted to discuss and explain any queries that you might have.
Take into account the 85th %ile, RTTM, selection on bias and even a basic understanding of human psychology, will all help 'one' to appreciate that proper or intelligent road safety is not possible with any 'quick fix'.
Paul spent years pouring over stats and studied and produced a massive and top quality website that many find difficult to fully comprehend due to it's depth of math and physics and law.
Paul died doing what he believed in. He had the Government on the run by just using his brain and a laptop, when did you ever manage to achieve such a task ?
This can only be achieved through the truth and hard facts.
You still try to condemn my Safe Speed Forums, by quoting comments mostly from members of the public. perhaps some of those comments were yours?
Perhaps if the mods here would care to provide me with all your IP addresses I can check ?
The Safe Speed forums are open to the public with free speech talking place, so quoting comments by the public just makes you look desperate. The forums are separate to Safe Speed which has it's 'voice' as the main website and PR output. You will not find any of the 'so-called' comments by Paul that you mention on there.
Your comments are shameful and disgusting. I am further disgusted that the moderators here, have so far failed to removed all your slanderous comments.
Asenna IMO you are on the verge of obsessive harassment, your distaste for my late partner is sorry to see, and I feel sorry for you, and sad that you cannot see the clear facts and figures that he so carefully and intelligently collated and portrayed.
You resort to personal attacks in the hope that you might damage his good name, and perhaps upset me too, but in doing so you just damage your own name.
Have you yet read and understood :
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speed.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/ten.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
When you have I'd be delighted to discuss and explain any queries that you might have.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 12, 2010 at 16:32
So there you have it.
Safespeed have no intention or desire to subject their sensational claims to independent peer review by seeking to have them published in any serious academic journal. The reasons for not doing so they have given are just so much hot air and bluster. By the way , the BMJ have published research on speed cameras in the past.
">>>“he never did”
Of course, we all know there were health issues for which Paul Smith eventually succumbed to (Jan 08). You are trying to capitalise on this, attacking someone you know now cannot do the work or defend himself; that’s a really sick tactic!"
Smith made the the decision not to respond to requests from serious academic journals , there is nothing sick about bringing that act of cowardice into the public debate. Read the last paragraph.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/comment.transport
"Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’? Are your posts peer reviewed? If not then why should anyone take you seriously?"
It won`t do. Most of the links i have provided have come from peer reviewed studies. This means their methodology and statistics and their conclusions have been handed over to independent experts in the relevant disciplines to make sure that proper procedures and scientific standards have been followed. Why should my posts be peer reviewed ? , an idiotic remark . If i claimed thousands of people had been killed by speed cameras i would expect to be asked to justify it ,not on some loony website , but in a serious journal . If i did not i would expect to be disbelieved and looked upon as a crank , which is the view governments and genuine experts have of you lot.
"Look what "peer review" did for Darwin...."
Nothing of course , which is why he is a forgotten and discredited figure today. The 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of the Species passed recently without notice. Spot on safe speed Steve.
"You still try to condemn my Safe Speed Forums, by quoting comments mostly from members of the public. perhaps some of those comments were yours?"
"The Safe Speed forums are open to the public with free speech talking place, so quoting comments by the public just makes you look desperate. The forums are separate to Safe Speed which has it's 'voice' as the main website and PR output"
So the abuse that appears on your forums is not your responsibility ? You don`t monitor them ? You are seriously saying they are separate to Safespeed , and therefore you can wash your hands of them. You think i might have put them there myself ? . Crazy stuff.
None my comments are " slanderous " as you call it , they are all backed up with freely availiabe evidence and documentation.
Safespeed have no intention or desire to subject their sensational claims to independent peer review by seeking to have them published in any serious academic journal. The reasons for not doing so they have given are just so much hot air and bluster. By the way , the BMJ have published research on speed cameras in the past.
">>>“he never did”
Of course, we all know there were health issues for which Paul Smith eventually succumbed to (Jan 08). You are trying to capitalise on this, attacking someone you know now cannot do the work or defend himself; that’s a really sick tactic!"
Smith made the the decision not to respond to requests from serious academic journals , there is nothing sick about bringing that act of cowardice into the public debate. Read the last paragraph.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/comment.transport
"Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’? Are your posts peer reviewed? If not then why should anyone take you seriously?"
It won`t do. Most of the links i have provided have come from peer reviewed studies. This means their methodology and statistics and their conclusions have been handed over to independent experts in the relevant disciplines to make sure that proper procedures and scientific standards have been followed. Why should my posts be peer reviewed ? , an idiotic remark . If i claimed thousands of people had been killed by speed cameras i would expect to be asked to justify it ,not on some loony website , but in a serious journal . If i did not i would expect to be disbelieved and looked upon as a crank , which is the view governments and genuine experts have of you lot.
"Look what "peer review" did for Darwin...."
Nothing of course , which is why he is a forgotten and discredited figure today. The 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of the Species passed recently without notice. Spot on safe speed Steve.
"You still try to condemn my Safe Speed Forums, by quoting comments mostly from members of the public. perhaps some of those comments were yours?"
"The Safe Speed forums are open to the public with free speech talking place, so quoting comments by the public just makes you look desperate. The forums are separate to Safe Speed which has it's 'voice' as the main website and PR output"
So the abuse that appears on your forums is not your responsibility ? You don`t monitor them ? You are seriously saying they are separate to Safespeed , and therefore you can wash your hands of them. You think i might have put them there myself ? . Crazy stuff.
None my comments are " slanderous " as you call it , they are all backed up with freely availiabe evidence and documentation.
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 12, 2010 at 18:50
ASENNA
""Funny how ASENNA's arguments fall apart when someone challenges them, isn't it?"
YOUR COMMENT AS JOHNNYTHEBOY ON SAFESPEEDERS FORUM:
"The likes of ASENNA/Spiny are best beaten be weight of opinion rather than argument (IMHO)."
Classic , oh dear ,you could'nt make it up."
So in answer to the fact that I point out (on a public forum that it's flattering to know you're still hanging round) that you are best beaten by weight of response, your best retort is:
"Classic , oh dear ,you could'nt make it up"
Indeed you "could'nt"...
My point was that however much your attempts to batter your audience with spurious link fests, schoolboy science and abuse are rebuffed, you have no come back to the fact that on a non-aligned forum like this, the rating shows that you are not in the majority. Most people aren't fanatically angry about wanting to drive quickly like you are. Get with the programme!
""Funny how ASENNA's arguments fall apart when someone challenges them, isn't it?"
YOUR COMMENT AS JOHNNYTHEBOY ON SAFESPEEDERS FORUM:
"The likes of ASENNA/Spiny are best beaten be weight of opinion rather than argument (IMHO)."
Classic , oh dear ,you could'nt make it up."
So in answer to the fact that I point out (on a public forum that it's flattering to know you're still hanging round) that you are best beaten by weight of response, your best retort is:
"Classic , oh dear ,you could'nt make it up"
Indeed you "could'nt"...
My point was that however much your attempts to batter your audience with spurious link fests, schoolboy science and abuse are rebuffed, you have no come back to the fact that on a non-aligned forum like this, the rating shows that you are not in the majority. Most people aren't fanatically angry about wanting to drive quickly like you are. Get with the programme!
Posted by
safesteve
July 12, 2010 at 20:03
>>>"Safespeed have no intention or desire to subject their sensational claims to independent peer review by seeking to have them published in any serious academic journal"
No one said any such thing! Go back and look for yourself. Where's your documentation to prove your new claim (like for the one about “fantasised about running over cyclists”)? Before you answer, you might want to consider the concept of *priorities* (a la "more urgent and important to the campaign objectives.").
>>>"Smith made the the decision not to respond to requests from serious academic journals "
No he didn't. You’re misrepresenting again.
Monbiot's comments in the link you gave aren't exactly peer reviewed - but that doesn't stop you from posting that to support your agenda!
>>>"an idiotic remark"
Which is why I followed it up with "reductio ad absurdum" – the purpose of which was to highlight your folly of outright dismissal of logical arguments, simply because they're not peer-reviewed.
>>>"If i claimed thousands of people had been killed by speed cameras i would expect to be asked to justify it ,not on some loony website , but in a serious journal"
Why not on a serious website for open review?
It’s funny how you're happy to fall back on the peer-review argument as a distraction from your inability to refute the arguments posed to you, while completely ignoring the questions returned to you about the same subject!
You evaded the question:
"Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’?"
Look what "peer review" did for Darwin....
>>>"Nothing of course ,"
Indeed - at the time. And What about Harrison?
Have you managed to reconcile your obvious hypocrisy yet?
I’ll keep asking you:
Which group should be the one to have their work peer-reviewed:
a) the one which made the original claims of effectiveness, whose claims affects policy, and livelihoods, who have an enviable revenue stream and hence have great resource at their disposal to do so,
b) a campaign group who has demonstrated fallacies and confounding factors of the work of the other group (a).
Why do you seek to ask for peer-review of those who can show the work of others are fallacious and also not peer-reviewed, while not asking that the original fallacious claims be reviewed?
- "That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "
Have you managed to understand the meaning of the words (that you linked) “damaged road safety”? Wouldn’t that result with a “fatality gap”?
- Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
- On the basis of your logic (of the irreducible minimum), any further improvements to car and road design wouldn’t make any difference? So an absolute zero-tolerance of speeders/drinkers/druggers/phoners wouldn’t make any difference?
- If there is no weakening of ongoing improvements, why should the fatality curve level out when roads/vehicles/interaction is becoming ever safer?
- Has biker deaths increased by 1000 per year from 2001 to 2010, or did you cherry pick a fluctuation?
What about the factors of:
- Respect for law (unacknowledged)
- Fatigue (unacknowledged)
- Displacement (unacknowledged)
- Judgement (unacknowledged)
- Have you figured out where the zero is on a logarithmic axis yet?
You’ll never live that one down. Wherever you post your crap, I’ll endeavour to be there (with my own copy’n’paste) to expose your inability to comprehend your own mathematical arguments you tried to present.
No one said any such thing! Go back and look for yourself. Where's your documentation to prove your new claim (like for the one about “fantasised about running over cyclists”)? Before you answer, you might want to consider the concept of *priorities* (a la "more urgent and important to the campaign objectives.").
>>>"Smith made the the decision not to respond to requests from serious academic journals "
No he didn't. You’re misrepresenting again.
Monbiot's comments in the link you gave aren't exactly peer reviewed - but that doesn't stop you from posting that to support your agenda!
>>>"an idiotic remark"
Which is why I followed it up with "reductio ad absurdum" – the purpose of which was to highlight your folly of outright dismissal of logical arguments, simply because they're not peer-reviewed.
>>>"If i claimed thousands of people had been killed by speed cameras i would expect to be asked to justify it ,not on some loony website , but in a serious journal"
Why not on a serious website for open review?
It’s funny how you're happy to fall back on the peer-review argument as a distraction from your inability to refute the arguments posed to you, while completely ignoring the questions returned to you about the same subject!
You evaded the question:
"Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’?"
Look what "peer review" did for Darwin....
>>>"Nothing of course ,"
Indeed - at the time. And What about Harrison?
Have you managed to reconcile your obvious hypocrisy yet?
I’ll keep asking you:
Which group should be the one to have their work peer-reviewed:
a) the one which made the original claims of effectiveness, whose claims affects policy, and livelihoods, who have an enviable revenue stream and hence have great resource at their disposal to do so,
b) a campaign group who has demonstrated fallacies and confounding factors of the work of the other group (a).
Why do you seek to ask for peer-review of those who can show the work of others are fallacious and also not peer-reviewed, while not asking that the original fallacious claims be reviewed?
- "That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "
Have you managed to understand the meaning of the words (that you linked) “damaged road safety”? Wouldn’t that result with a “fatality gap”?
- Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
- On the basis of your logic (of the irreducible minimum), any further improvements to car and road design wouldn’t make any difference? So an absolute zero-tolerance of speeders/drinkers/druggers/phoners wouldn’t make any difference?
- If there is no weakening of ongoing improvements, why should the fatality curve level out when roads/vehicles/interaction is becoming ever safer?
- Has biker deaths increased by 1000 per year from 2001 to 2010, or did you cherry pick a fluctuation?
What about the factors of:
- Respect for law (unacknowledged)
- Fatigue (unacknowledged)
- Displacement (unacknowledged)
- Judgement (unacknowledged)
- Have you figured out where the zero is on a logarithmic axis yet?
You’ll never live that one down. Wherever you post your crap, I’ll endeavour to be there (with my own copy’n’paste) to expose your inability to comprehend your own mathematical arguments you tried to present.
Posted by
Chuffy
July 12, 2010 at 21:26
After reading Aitken's diatribe at the top of the page and the following discourse the plot appears to have been lost. Aitken is clearly a disaffected speeder who miserably lost his badly defended speeding case. Now he is on a campaign to improve road safety by.......wait for it.........allowing drivers to choose their own speed.
His idea and the analysis he has applied to the present law and enforcement of it can be summarised with a word that means testicles, nothing further needs be said about it as that is what it is.
I may be wrong but it is futile to attempt to remove what has been termed libellous information about Paul Smith as he is dead so cannot be libelled. It also appears that what has been said is factual. 2 reasons that no libel has occurred; his defenders are as accurate as his analysis. ;)
His idea and the analysis he has applied to the present law and enforcement of it can be summarised with a word that means testicles, nothing further needs be said about it as that is what it is.
I may be wrong but it is futile to attempt to remove what has been termed libellous information about Paul Smith as he is dead so cannot be libelled. It also appears that what has been said is factual. 2 reasons that no libel has occurred; his defenders are as accurate as his analysis. ;)
Posted by
SafeSpeed
July 12, 2010 at 22:39
The information used by Paul as shown clearly on the website stems mostly from government used authorities such as the Dept of Transport, Transport Research Laboratory and Transport for London.
Paul's claims are proving correct and have already been confirmed by several independent studies.
Just a few days ago the Tax Payers Alliance & Driver's Alliance have independently shown by statisticians that the 'fatality gap' is clear to see. Here : http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/speedcameras.pdf
Others too have verified that RTTM (Dr Linda Mountain Liverpool University) was not accounted for in TRL595 thus altering the 30% claim that speed was a factor in accidents, down to 5%.
The TRL etc are not peer reviewed. That data is considered fact. Each webpage has an invite that if proven incorrect it will be changed. By all means submit materials for us to consider.
Paul's claims are proving correct and have already been confirmed by several independent studies.
Just a few days ago the Tax Payers Alliance & Driver's Alliance have independently shown by statisticians that the 'fatality gap' is clear to see. Here : http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/speedcameras.pdf
Others too have verified that RTTM (Dr Linda Mountain Liverpool University) was not accounted for in TRL595 thus altering the 30% claim that speed was a factor in accidents, down to 5%.
The TRL etc are not peer reviewed. That data is considered fact. Each webpage has an invite that if proven incorrect it will be changed. By all means submit materials for us to consider.
Posted by
safesteve
July 13, 2010 at 12:52
[Chuffy] "Now he is on a campaign to improve road safety by.......wait for it.........allowing drivers to choose their own speed."
Really?
[AitkenBrotherston] "You might think that I wish to see all speed regulations abolished. If you did you would be wrong. It is true that a lot of work needs to be done to make them realistic and effective but to abolish them would not be wise."
[Chuffy]"It also appears that what has been said is factual."
The key word here is "appears". I have already shown how the "suggestions" and "advice" were not as asenna portrayed. Let's not forget the "running over cyclists" fantasies either!
[Chuffy] "his defenders are as accurate as his analysis. ;)"
.... very accurate!
Thus far the 'fatality gap' argument stands.
Really?
[AitkenBrotherston] "You might think that I wish to see all speed regulations abolished. If you did you would be wrong. It is true that a lot of work needs to be done to make them realistic and effective but to abolish them would not be wise."
[Chuffy]"It also appears that what has been said is factual."
The key word here is "appears". I have already shown how the "suggestions" and "advice" were not as asenna portrayed. Let's not forget the "running over cyclists" fantasies either!
[Chuffy] "his defenders are as accurate as his analysis. ;)"
.... very accurate!
Thus far the 'fatality gap' argument stands.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 13, 2010 at 16:09
"Just a few days ago the Tax Payers Alliance & Driver's Alliance have independently shown by statisticians that the 'fatality gap' is clear to see"
Anyone who has nothing left in their locker other than quote The Tax Dodgers Alliance is clearly up effluent creek in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle. They are a handful of Thatcherite boys and girls in an office. They don't represent the tax payer and know bugger all about road safety.It contains no research ,the usual adolescent abuses of statistics , an astonishing graph that predicts zero casualties by about 2015 if no speed cameras had been introduced and is just about what you would expect from a bunch of right wing economic libertarians.
Meanwhile back in the world of the sane and proper research by proper scientists who were not members of the Bullingdon Club:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/302.abstract?m
Anyone who has nothing left in their locker other than quote The Tax Dodgers Alliance is clearly up effluent creek in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle. They are a handful of Thatcherite boys and girls in an office. They don't represent the tax payer and know bugger all about road safety.It contains no research ,the usual adolescent abuses of statistics , an astonishing graph that predicts zero casualties by about 2015 if no speed cameras had been introduced and is just about what you would expect from a bunch of right wing economic libertarians.
Meanwhile back in the world of the sane and proper research by proper scientists who were not members of the Bullingdon Club:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/302.abstract?m
Posted by
ASENNA
July 13, 2010 at 17:42
And it gets worse.
Safespeed recruiting The Tax Dodgers Alliance for support is rather like the blood transfusion service signing up Dracula.
http://taxpayersalliance.or[…]one-foot-on-the-accelerator
http://www.roadpeace.org/[…]/PR_090710_TPA_response.pdf
Like asking Hitler to research the Jewish religion.
Keep it up Safespeed.Things can only get better.
http://www.fullfact.org/[…]/?catid=&id=93&sel=articlelist
Safespeed recruiting The Tax Dodgers Alliance for support is rather like the blood transfusion service signing up Dracula.
http://taxpayersalliance.or[…]one-foot-on-the-accelerator
http://www.roadpeace.org/[…]/PR_090710_TPA_response.pdf
Like asking Hitler to research the Jewish religion.
Keep it up Safespeed.Things can only get better.
http://www.fullfact.org/[…]/?catid=&id=93&sel=articlelist
Posted by
ASENNA
July 13, 2010 at 18:20
By the way , the absurd graph ( graph 2 ) on the Tax Dodgers speed camera " research " study gives 1991 as the start date for speed cameras.Why choose that year ? Well the they have decided what they want to prove and then devised a statistical method ( and a start year ) guaranteed to bring home the bacon.A complete reversal of course of the normal statistical method employed by genuine scientists but just what you would expect from a pressure group funded by a tax dodger.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 13, 2010 at 18:47
And on the subject of the founder of Safespeed advocating perverting the course of justice by getting students , old people or dead people to receive ( or " broker " ) someone else's speeding ticket , there is no doubt about it .Just read the conversation. Libel my arse.
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
Posted by
ASENNA
July 13, 2010 at 18:50
"You don't even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name from the local newspaper's obituary column has been known to work nicely. With a bit of care in your choice, there's no one to call you a liar.
(It's on my web site :-)
--
Paul Smith
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
(It's on my web site :-)
--
Paul Smith
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
Posted by
safesteve
July 13, 2010 at 19:53
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/302.abstract?m
"before and after study ... 51% reduction"
Errmm, did that account for the proven RTTM? I think not! I note the date of that as 2003. I refer you to table H7 of your “Four Year Evaluation Report [2005]” that reduces the 55% “before vs after” to 10% (that that's not accounting for other factors such as 'bias on selection'). Looks like submission to, and acceptance by, the BMJ doesn’t assure validity - score another to Safe Speed:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html [2003]
http://www.fullfact.org/[…]/?catid=&id=93&sel=articlelist
I've always been of the opinion that the revenues are to the benefit of SCP staff and that the only reason why the government supports them is because they wanted to save face instead of admitting they were fooled.
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
You conveniently quoted out of context.
To make it clear to you, or at least the reader (it’s fairly obvious you wouldn’t allow yourself to concede): that was obviously a discussion about the legal validity of an idea.
[PS]"Could it be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or not?"
It looks like I have to repeat myself to you; odd how you didn't acknowledge this when I first pointed this out to you:
[me earlier to you]"You should digest your own link. The issue was nothing more than a legal query, as well as a comment about what someone else brought up, not "advice" as you wrongly described. Nice try!"
Also, the response was following that idea from someone else [Alasdair Baxter].
‘This is how the idea could work, but is it legally workable’? is not “advice” by anyone's standards (except yours apparently). That’s why your claim is false.
[ASENNA]"funded by a tax dodger."
So do you have the evidence for this, or is that yet more libel?
Your bitty, ad hominem posts aren’t going to divert away from your pitiful evasion of all the pertinent, outstanding questions to you. Here they are again in case you missed them (plus more):
- Where is your proof that Paul Smith “made the decision not to respond to requests from serious academic journals"?
- Is it right to outright dismiss logical arguments simply because they’ve not been peer-reviewed? (more so following a failed attempt to refute them)
- Why not on a serious website for open review?
- "Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’?"
- Have you managed to reconcile your obvious hypocrisy yet?
I’ll keep asking you:
Which group should be the one to have their work peer-reviewed:
a) the one which made the original claims of effectiveness, whose claims affects policy, and livelihoods, who have an enviable revenue stream and hence have great resource at their disposal to do so,
b) a campaign group who has demonstrated fallacies and confounding factors of the work of the other group (a).
- Why do you seek to ask for peer-review of those who can show the work of others are fallacious and also not peer-reviewed, while not asking that the original fallacious claims be reviewed?
- "That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "
Have you managed to understand the meaning of the words (that you linked) “damaged road safety”? Wouldn’t that result with a “fatality gap”?
- Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
- On the basis of your logic (of the irreducible minimum), any further improvements to car and road design wouldn’t make any difference? So an absolute zero-tolerance of speeders/drinkers/druggers/phoners wouldn’t make any difference?
- If there is no weakening of ongoing improvements, why should the fatality curve level out when roads/vehicles/interaction is becoming ever safer?
- Has biker deaths increased by 1000 per year from 2001 to 2010, or did you cherry pick a fluctuation?
What about the factors of:
- Respect for law (unacknowledged)
- Fatigue (unacknowledged)
- Displacement (unacknowledged)
- Judgement (unacknowledged)
- Have you figured out where your zero is on a logarithmic axis?
"before and after study ... 51% reduction"
Errmm, did that account for the proven RTTM? I think not! I note the date of that as 2003. I refer you to table H7 of your “Four Year Evaluation Report [2005]” that reduces the 55% “before vs after” to 10% (that that's not accounting for other factors such as 'bias on selection'). Looks like submission to, and acceptance by, the BMJ doesn’t assure validity - score another to Safe Speed:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html [2003]
http://www.fullfact.org/[…]/?catid=&id=93&sel=articlelist
I've always been of the opinion that the revenues are to the benefit of SCP staff and that the only reason why the government supports them is because they wanted to save face instead of admitting they were fooled.
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
You conveniently quoted out of context.
To make it clear to you, or at least the reader (it’s fairly obvious you wouldn’t allow yourself to concede): that was obviously a discussion about the legal validity of an idea.
[PS]"Could it be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or not?"
It looks like I have to repeat myself to you; odd how you didn't acknowledge this when I first pointed this out to you:
[me earlier to you]"You should digest your own link. The issue was nothing more than a legal query, as well as a comment about what someone else brought up, not "advice" as you wrongly described. Nice try!"
Also, the response was following that idea from someone else [Alasdair Baxter].
‘This is how the idea could work, but is it legally workable’? is not “advice” by anyone's standards (except yours apparently). That’s why your claim is false.
[ASENNA]"funded by a tax dodger."
So do you have the evidence for this, or is that yet more libel?
Your bitty, ad hominem posts aren’t going to divert away from your pitiful evasion of all the pertinent, outstanding questions to you. Here they are again in case you missed them (plus more):
- Where is your proof that Paul Smith “made the decision not to respond to requests from serious academic journals"?
- Is it right to outright dismiss logical arguments simply because they’ve not been peer-reviewed? (more so following a failed attempt to refute them)
- Why not on a serious website for open review?
- "Just how many campaign groups have had to have their work peer-reviewed before being ‘taken seriously’?"
- Have you managed to reconcile your obvious hypocrisy yet?
I’ll keep asking you:
Which group should be the one to have their work peer-reviewed:
a) the one which made the original claims of effectiveness, whose claims affects policy, and livelihoods, who have an enviable revenue stream and hence have great resource at their disposal to do so,
b) a campaign group who has demonstrated fallacies and confounding factors of the work of the other group (a).
- Why do you seek to ask for peer-review of those who can show the work of others are fallacious and also not peer-reviewed, while not asking that the original fallacious claims be reviewed?
- "That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... had damaged road safety by removing traffic policing from the core duties of police forces. "
Have you managed to understand the meaning of the words (that you linked) “damaged road safety”? Wouldn’t that result with a “fatality gap”?
- Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
- On the basis of your logic (of the irreducible minimum), any further improvements to car and road design wouldn’t make any difference? So an absolute zero-tolerance of speeders/drinkers/druggers/phoners wouldn’t make any difference?
- If there is no weakening of ongoing improvements, why should the fatality curve level out when roads/vehicles/interaction is becoming ever safer?
- Has biker deaths increased by 1000 per year from 2001 to 2010, or did you cherry pick a fluctuation?
What about the factors of:
- Respect for law (unacknowledged)
- Fatigue (unacknowledged)
- Displacement (unacknowledged)
- Judgement (unacknowledged)
- Have you figured out where your zero is on a logarithmic axis?
Posted by
gbell
July 13, 2010 at 20:03
Chuffy said "Now he is on a campaign to improve road safety by.......wait for it.........allowing drivers to choose their own speed."
Well it just so happens that for a few years the state of Montana had no numerical speed limits outside towns, meaning drivers were allowed to choose their own speed. And during this period Montana had it lowest accident figures ever. Then people like Chuffy decided people must have speed limits imposed on them by 'people who know better' - and the accident rate doubled.
The Isle of Man also allows people to choose their own speed outside built up areas - and all without it causing the sort of mass carnage people like Chuffy and ASENNA like to give the impression that this would inevitably lead to.
And of course you can also choose your own speed on Germany's unrestricted autobahn's - which have a better safety record than many motorway networks with relatively low speed limits.
Well it just so happens that for a few years the state of Montana had no numerical speed limits outside towns, meaning drivers were allowed to choose their own speed. And during this period Montana had it lowest accident figures ever. Then people like Chuffy decided people must have speed limits imposed on them by 'people who know better' - and the accident rate doubled.
The Isle of Man also allows people to choose their own speed outside built up areas - and all without it causing the sort of mass carnage people like Chuffy and ASENNA like to give the impression that this would inevitably lead to.
And of course you can also choose your own speed on Germany's unrestricted autobahn's - which have a better safety record than many motorway networks with relatively low speed limits.
Posted by
safesteve
July 13, 2010 at 21:22
... or hiding behind many random names!
Posted by
ASENNA
July 13, 2010 at 21:40
Posted by safesteve July 13, 2010 at 07:53PM
"‘This is how the idea could work, but is it legally workable’? is not “advice” by anyone's standards (except yours apparently). That’s why your claim is false."
Smith went on to advice people that when they chose a dead person to receive their speeding ticket they should make sure he/she was alive at the time of the offence. How anyone can read the exchanges i have linked to and conclude that this was NOT a discussion on how to pervert the course of justice is beyond belief.
"Have you figured out where your zero is on a logarithmic axis?"
Surprised to see you have failed to comment on the remarkable graph ( no 2 ) in the Tax Dodgers research paper. Have you figured out which year they predict zero casualties would have occurred in ? Looks like about 2015 . No logarithmic axis there to help you. Much more tomorrow on this festering heap of junk science from the Bullingdon Club.
"‘This is how the idea could work, but is it legally workable’? is not “advice” by anyone's standards (except yours apparently). That’s why your claim is false."
Smith went on to advice people that when they chose a dead person to receive their speeding ticket they should make sure he/she was alive at the time of the offence. How anyone can read the exchanges i have linked to and conclude that this was NOT a discussion on how to pervert the course of justice is beyond belief.
"Have you figured out where your zero is on a logarithmic axis?"
Surprised to see you have failed to comment on the remarkable graph ( no 2 ) in the Tax Dodgers research paper. Have you figured out which year they predict zero casualties would have occurred in ? Looks like about 2015 . No logarithmic axis there to help you. Much more tomorrow on this festering heap of junk science from the Bullingdon Club.
Posted by
Captainstanley
July 13, 2010 at 22:47
This has been an entertaining exchange.
ASENNA'S links are thoughtfully chosen and illuminating.
His opponents can only fall back on crank websites rather than siting any actual scientific research to back up their views.
Paul Smith, on the evidence above, does seem to have been a nasty piece of work.
ASENNA'S links are thoughtfully chosen and illuminating.
His opponents can only fall back on crank websites rather than siting any actual scientific research to back up their views.
Paul Smith, on the evidence above, does seem to have been a nasty piece of work.
Posted by
safesteve
July 14, 2010 at 00:19
Captainstanley,
how anyone can dismiss the uncountered arguments given within this thread without a second thought, is beyond me. The links chosen have been shown to be fallacious, even the BMJ one!
I smell a large amount of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance!
how anyone can dismiss the uncountered arguments given within this thread without a second thought, is beyond me. The links chosen have been shown to be fallacious, even the BMJ one!
I smell a large amount of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance!
Posted by
safesteve
July 14, 2010 at 00:40
[asenna]"advice" You are twisting things. Where did he say "I recommend you" or "I advise you" or "you should" or words to that effect?
[asenna]"and conclude that this was NOT a discussion on how to pervert the course of justice is beyond belief"
[PS]"Anyone care to give us a opinion about the legality of brokering licence points? Could it be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or not? "
Sound like a discussion of legality to me, without a hint of “advice”.
Have you figured out where your zero is on a logarithmic axis?
[asenna]"Surprised to see you have failed to comment on the remarkable graph ( no 2 ) in the Tax Dodgers research paper."
What was it you said earlier - oh that's right: "A pitiful non sequitur of an answer", and on top of that you are wrong!
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
As you can clearly see, unlike some here, I (and Safe Speed) are honest enough to call BS where we see it.
So anyway, I’m NOT “surprised to see you have failed to comment on OUR remarkable graph”; so have you figured out where your zero is on the Safe Speed logarithmic axis? No diversion this time please!
What about my other questions/issues raised to you? Are you going to address them, or do you accept you cannot counter them? (well it's certainly not down to your lack of trying as you keep posting here).
I think the reader can easily tell that your evasive tactics are becoming increasingly desperate!
[asenna]"and conclude that this was NOT a discussion on how to pervert the course of justice is beyond belief"
[PS]"Anyone care to give us a opinion about the legality of brokering licence points? Could it be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or not? "
Sound like a discussion of legality to me, without a hint of “advice”.
Have you figured out where your zero is on a logarithmic axis?
[asenna]"Surprised to see you have failed to comment on the remarkable graph ( no 2 ) in the Tax Dodgers research paper."
What was it you said earlier - oh that's right: "A pitiful non sequitur of an answer", and on top of that you are wrong!
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
As you can clearly see, unlike some here, I (and Safe Speed) are honest enough to call BS where we see it.
So anyway, I’m NOT “surprised to see you have failed to comment on OUR remarkable graph”; so have you figured out where your zero is on the Safe Speed logarithmic axis? No diversion this time please!
What about my other questions/issues raised to you? Are you going to address them, or do you accept you cannot counter them? (well it's certainly not down to your lack of trying as you keep posting here).
I think the reader can easily tell that your evasive tactics are becoming increasingly desperate!
Posted by
ASENNA
July 14, 2010 at 11:02
There are some nice graphs here Safespeeders , sadly they bring bad news to the speed deniers.
http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
As for The Dodgy Dossier on speed cameras produced by The Tory Poshboys Alliance , more will be posted later but right now i am off to The Bullingdon Club to laugh at the poor.
http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
As for The Dodgy Dossier on speed cameras produced by The Tory Poshboys Alliance , more will be posted later but right now i am off to The Bullingdon Club to laugh at the poor.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 14, 2010 at 11:07
For some reason this forum has now decided to crunch all the text up into a single paragraph making it difficult to read and not highlighting links or making them " active ". I shall be complaining to The Tax Dodgers Alliance about this waste of money.
Posted by
safesteve
July 14, 2010 at 13:19
That’s a novel way handling an already refuted argument: post the same link again and hope that no one will notice! Was that an attempt to capitalise on the forum's loss of formatting?
[asenna]http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
Like I said to you earlier: “Links 2, 4 & 5 glosses over the factors I gave earlier - the: respect, displacement, fatigue and judgement. I repeat: increasing the speed limits on safer roads (such as motorways) could well result with an overall reduction of casualties on the road network. That's why I cannot take those seriously.”
Your folly wouldn’t be so funny if you had actually addressed my response to that the first time around!!
[asenna]http://erso.swov.nl/[…]/speed_and_accident_risk.htm
Like I said to you earlier: “Links 2, 4 & 5 glosses over the factors I gave earlier - the: respect, displacement, fatigue and judgement. I repeat: increasing the speed limits on safer roads (such as motorways) could well result with an overall reduction of casualties on the road network. That's why I cannot take those seriously.”
Your folly wouldn’t be so funny if you had actually addressed my response to that the first time around!!
Posted by
gbell
July 14, 2010 at 20:04
ASENNA said "There are some nice graphs here Safespeeders, sadly they bring bad news to the speed deniers."
'Speed deniers'? But we don't deny speed - we just deny that it's the major cause of road accidents the 'speed kills' lobby claims. The problem with report linked to with the above, which states 'A higher speed increases the likelihood of an accident' is that there's real world evidence showing the opposite. When the USA ditched its blanket 55mph in 1995, 33 states immediately raised their speed limits and the number of road deaths/injuries fell to a record low. Also at odds with the quoted report is the fact that unrestricted German autobahns are safer than many limited motorway networks. So obviously there must be other factors affecting road safety that this report has failed to even consider.
'Speed deniers'? But we don't deny speed - we just deny that it's the major cause of road accidents the 'speed kills' lobby claims. The problem with report linked to with the above, which states 'A higher speed increases the likelihood of an accident' is that there's real world evidence showing the opposite. When the USA ditched its blanket 55mph in 1995, 33 states immediately raised their speed limits and the number of road deaths/injuries fell to a record low. Also at odds with the quoted report is the fact that unrestricted German autobahns are safer than many limited motorway networks. So obviously there must be other factors affecting road safety that this report has failed to even consider.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 15, 2010 at 05:25
MYTH NO 1
RAISING SPEED LIMITS IN THE USA MADE NO DIFFERENCE
TO CASUALTIES
Claim: In an article titled ‘Motorists cry foul at rise in speed cameras’, the Daily Telegraph argued that speed
‘does not of itself cause accidents’ and that ‘when the 50mph national speed limit was lifted in America, there
was no noticeable increase in accidents caused by speed’16.
Reality: This would be very interesting if it were true. In 1987 the national speed limit in the United States
rose from a 55 mph limit imposed during the fuel crisis in the early 70s to 65 mph. In 1995 individual states
were allowed to set their own limits. A recent report found that the post-1995 rise in speed limits in many
American states has triggered a 35% increase in death rates17. The report compared 22 states that raised
interstate highway speed limits to 70 or 75 mph when the federal speed limit was abolished in 1995 to 12
states where the limit stayed at 65 mph, and found that there were 1,880 more deaths on interstates between
1996 and 1999 in states with higher speed limits. The reverse effect is also evident: in 1974, when the national
speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, fatality rates dropped by 50% on the interstate highways and by 70% on
other four-lane rural highways18. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now advocating
the adoption of speed camera laws similar to those in the UK to help counteract the rising death toll19.
The overall autobahn death toll is difficult to determine, but a recent study on a stretch of the A66 in central Germany is giving ammunition to the speed limit proponents. Around 90,000 vehicles a day travel down this motorway. In August 2000 the guideline limit was raised from 62mph to 75mph — and the number of accidents rose from 100 in the year 2000 to 170 last year.
http://www.bast.de/[…]/e-massenunfaelle.html
The Autobahns in Germany have a yearly fatality rate of 3.8 per million people. Fifth highest in Europe.
RAISING SPEED LIMITS IN THE USA MADE NO DIFFERENCE
TO CASUALTIES
Claim: In an article titled ‘Motorists cry foul at rise in speed cameras’, the Daily Telegraph argued that speed
‘does not of itself cause accidents’ and that ‘when the 50mph national speed limit was lifted in America, there
was no noticeable increase in accidents caused by speed’16.
Reality: This would be very interesting if it were true. In 1987 the national speed limit in the United States
rose from a 55 mph limit imposed during the fuel crisis in the early 70s to 65 mph. In 1995 individual states
were allowed to set their own limits. A recent report found that the post-1995 rise in speed limits in many
American states has triggered a 35% increase in death rates17. The report compared 22 states that raised
interstate highway speed limits to 70 or 75 mph when the federal speed limit was abolished in 1995 to 12
states where the limit stayed at 65 mph, and found that there were 1,880 more deaths on interstates between
1996 and 1999 in states with higher speed limits. The reverse effect is also evident: in 1974, when the national
speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, fatality rates dropped by 50% on the interstate highways and by 70% on
other four-lane rural highways18. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now advocating
the adoption of speed camera laws similar to those in the UK to help counteract the rising death toll19.
The overall autobahn death toll is difficult to determine, but a recent study on a stretch of the A66 in central Germany is giving ammunition to the speed limit proponents. Around 90,000 vehicles a day travel down this motorway. In August 2000 the guideline limit was raised from 62mph to 75mph — and the number of accidents rose from 100 in the year 2000 to 170 last year.
http://www.bast.de/[…]/e-massenunfaelle.html
The Autobahns in Germany have a yearly fatality rate of 3.8 per million people. Fifth highest in Europe.
Posted by
safesteve
July 15, 2010 at 09:41
Spindrift, sorry: asenna, have you been following this thread at all? I'll just quote myself to show you have your recent post has already been addressed <sigh>
“Links 2, 4 & 5 glosses over the factors I gave earlier - the: respect, **DISPLACEMENT**, fatigue and judgement. I repeat: increasing the speed limits on safer roads (such as motorways) could well result with an overall reduction of casualties on the road network. That's why I cannot take those seriously.”
"DISPLACEMENT: A reasonable setting of say motorway (safest type of road) speed limits will result with a displacement of traffic away from less safe environments. Even if it was true that the casualty rate on the motorways subsequently increased (don't forget the fatigue) there could well be less casualties overall as there is overall less chance of it occurring anyway."
“Links 2, 4 & 5 glosses over the factors I gave earlier - the: respect, **DISPLACEMENT**, fatigue and judgement. I repeat: increasing the speed limits on safer roads (such as motorways) could well result with an overall reduction of casualties on the road network. That's why I cannot take those seriously.”
"DISPLACEMENT: A reasonable setting of say motorway (safest type of road) speed limits will result with a displacement of traffic away from less safe environments. Even if it was true that the casualty rate on the motorways subsequently increased (don't forget the fatigue) there could well be less casualties overall as there is overall less chance of it occurring anyway."
Posted by
gbell
July 15, 2010 at 17:30
Regarding the raising of US speed limits, I've quoted earlier in this thread from 2 reports which show that following US speed limits being increased, road casualties fell to lowest levels on record, just like I said above. As for lowering the speed limit in 1974 reducing casualties, well there was an oil crisis on leading to fuel shortages and a reduction in road use, so hardly surprising accident rates fell.
Posted by
SafeSpeed
July 16, 2010 at 13:00
I find in life that there are those whom I meet, that try to relish life, and learn all that they can absorb, growing in knowledge and wisdom with each new fact they find. I try to be like this.
I also meet people that are limited by their own boundaries.
"Feel the Fear and do it anyway" is a great book / tape etc., I thoroughly recommend it to everyone.
I welcome opposing views, so that we can explore and grow with respect for each other, and hopefully all learn and gain much knowledge hopefully, becoming better people at the end of it. Sometimes and sadly some people become rude and abusive and no meaningful growth is resulting. I fear that this is happening here.
I also meet people that are limited by their own boundaries.
"Feel the Fear and do it anyway" is a great book / tape etc., I thoroughly recommend it to everyone.
I welcome opposing views, so that we can explore and grow with respect for each other, and hopefully all learn and gain much knowledge hopefully, becoming better people at the end of it. Sometimes and sadly some people become rude and abusive and no meaningful growth is resulting. I fear that this is happening here.
Posted by
SafeSpeed
July 16, 2010 at 13:14
So returning to the original point of this thread...
Speed laws used to be a good guide see:
Http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speed.html
It helped inexperienced road users to gauge what speed was appropriate to conditions.
It was drummed into every road user to keep your eyes on the road and pay attention. Don't drive tired, be observant and so on and all backed up with good simple public information films reminding people what was expected of them.
This worked, and was backed up usually pretty well by the active Police patrolling the roads.
We need to return to what worked extremely well. It was simple, but that was not wrong for being so, simple often works well. When you are targeting an entire Nation you have to apply simple rules as you are catering for many varied characters and personalities.
When road types are clear too as to what speed is applied that backs up the whole system too and makes things easy to understand.
When road markings and signs are simple and clear this helps too.
Now back this up with active Police who can judge, enforce, educate and react immediately the whole system works well and have had the safest roads in the World proved it.
Then apply good experienced individuals who can advise on better road improvements and engineering solutions, plus education improvements and the greater achievements are within grasp.
The whole system has failed miserably to the tragic cost of lives, livelihoods and a host of untold, misery and suffering by much of the driving public. The added stress alone has probably caused much additional cost to the NHS in many ways.
We never used to measure safe driving in miles per hour and we should not be doing do now.
There is never a time to drive (ride) at an inappropriate speed.
Speed laws used to be a good guide see:
Http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speed.html
It helped inexperienced road users to gauge what speed was appropriate to conditions.
It was drummed into every road user to keep your eyes on the road and pay attention. Don't drive tired, be observant and so on and all backed up with good simple public information films reminding people what was expected of them.
This worked, and was backed up usually pretty well by the active Police patrolling the roads.
We need to return to what worked extremely well. It was simple, but that was not wrong for being so, simple often works well. When you are targeting an entire Nation you have to apply simple rules as you are catering for many varied characters and personalities.
When road types are clear too as to what speed is applied that backs up the whole system too and makes things easy to understand.
When road markings and signs are simple and clear this helps too.
Now back this up with active Police who can judge, enforce, educate and react immediately the whole system works well and have had the safest roads in the World proved it.
Then apply good experienced individuals who can advise on better road improvements and engineering solutions, plus education improvements and the greater achievements are within grasp.
The whole system has failed miserably to the tragic cost of lives, livelihoods and a host of untold, misery and suffering by much of the driving public. The added stress alone has probably caused much additional cost to the NHS in many ways.
We never used to measure safe driving in miles per hour and we should not be doing do now.
There is never a time to drive (ride) at an inappropriate speed.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 17, 2010 at 09:45
"The whole system has failed miserably to the tragic cost of lives, livelihoods and a host of untold, misery and suffering by much of the driving public.".............Britains roads are safer than ever despite Crapspeeds attempts to make them more dangerous. I assume the misery and suffering you speak of is that suffered by the next of kin of the many hundreds of people killed and seriously injured by speeding motorists each year.............. http://news.bbc.co.uk/[…]/7217399.stm ......I see the old Smith trick of giving someone elses name on your speeding notice of prosecution continues to be an idiotic and dangerous piece of advice.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 17, 2010 at 10:02
http://news.bbc.co.uk/[…]/6573225.stm ........ I agree with the judge here . Someone or group seems to be behind a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. "It beggars belief to suggest that taxi drivers are separately and spontaneously giving false details " , said the judge........ If you know who is behind this campaign call Crimestoppers now.
Posted by
safesteve
July 17, 2010 at 10:29
[asenna]"continues to be an idiotic and dangerous piece of advice."
Which is why it wasn't "advice", or even a "suggestion", despite your failed attempts to describe it as such.
I can't help but notice how it is your priority to attack the people behind the campaign instead of the arguments they give, or discuss safe driving practices. So is this really all you have left to argue, even though there is much food for thought given in this little thread? Isn't that very telling?
Which is why it wasn't "advice", or even a "suggestion", despite your failed attempts to describe it as such.
I can't help but notice how it is your priority to attack the people behind the campaign instead of the arguments they give, or discuss safe driving practices. So is this really all you have left to argue, even though there is much food for thought given in this little thread? Isn't that very telling?
Posted by
AitkenBrotherston
July 17, 2010 at 14:55
“ Posted by Chuffy July 12, 2010 at 21:26
…..... Now he is on a campaign to improve road safety by.......wait for it.........allowing drivers to choose their own speed.
His idea and the analysis he has applied to the present law and enforcement of it can be summarised with a word that means testicles …... “
Despite making it explicitly clear that I do not propose the abolition of speed regulation, Chuffy has presumed to express my objectives. I am obliged to safesteve for his post demonstrating his/her error. However, for the absence of doubt, let me list here my actual objectives..
1. To return road safety policy to the effective performance enjoyed pre 1995.
(the problem is not that fatalities, the only reliable statistic, are not going down. The problem is that post 1995 they are not going down nearly as fast as we have reasonable cause to expect)
2. To stop the illegal activities of various people involved in traffic regulation enforcement and our legal system.
3. To bring about the punishment of those described in #2 who have deliberately committed perjury, acted illegally and perverted the course of justice.
4. To overturn my illegally obtained conviction.
While many, maybe even most, people will not care about no 4, I cannot imagine any rational person disagreeing with the first three, improving road safety, stopping the government acting illegally and the punishment of those who have perverted the law.
As an additional benefit, when I do achieve my objective, many other wrongly convicted motorists will be able to receive justice.
I do hope that makes things clear.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 17, 2010 at 15:27
http://jaycueaitch.wordpress.com/[…]/ .....
The Tax Dodgers Alliance and their Dodgy Dossier on speed cameras , a work of mathematical insanity fully endorsed by SafeSpeeders.
The Tax Dodgers Alliance and their Dodgy Dossier on speed cameras , a work of mathematical insanity fully endorsed by SafeSpeeders.
Posted by
safesteve
July 17, 2010 at 17:56
[asenna]"...fully endorsed by SafeSpeeders."
Really? Where is that said? Can you give proof of that, or are you having problems differentiating your fantasies from reality, again?
When you earlier asked about our thoughts on the matter earlier in this thread, do you remember me giving you this link (Posted by safesteve July 14, 2010 at 00:40 ):
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
Now that doesn't nearly sound like 'fully endorsed by SafeSpeeders.' does it?
This must be the third time you have repeated something that has already been refuted; that nicely demonstrates the quality of your arguments, huh? Are you aware of the phrase 'the medicine isn't working, so increase the dose?'
Really? Where is that said? Can you give proof of that, or are you having problems differentiating your fantasies from reality, again?
When you earlier asked about our thoughts on the matter earlier in this thread, do you remember me giving you this link (Posted by safesteve July 14, 2010 at 00:40 ):
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
Now that doesn't nearly sound like 'fully endorsed by SafeSpeeders.' does it?
This must be the third time you have repeated something that has already been refuted; that nicely demonstrates the quality of your arguments, huh? Are you aware of the phrase 'the medicine isn't working, so increase the dose?'
Posted by
bhtarr
July 17, 2010 at 17:56
"The Autobahns in Germany have a yearly fatality rate of 3.8 per million people. Fifth highest in Europe."
Assena, for this figure to have any relevence, bearing in mind the millions of vehicles that use this stretch of road, it needs to be quoted in A/100mvkms, your figure means absolutely nothing in road safety terms.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 17, 2010 at 18:38
Posted by safesteve July 17, 2010 at 17:56
"[asenna]"...fully endorsed by SafeSpeeders."
Really? Where is that said? Can you give proof of that.....".
...................................................................
Yes i can , you really should try to keep. Have a word with the Armstrong woman.
..............................................................
" Posted by SafeSpeed July 12, 2010 at 22:39
The information used by Paul as shown clearly on the website stems mostly from government used authorities such as the Dept of Transport, Transport Research Laboratory and Transport for London.
Paul's claims are proving correct and have already been confirmed by several independent studies.
Just a few days ago the Tax Payers Alliance & Driver's Alliance have independently shown by statisticians that the 'fatality gap' is clear to see. Here : http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/speedcameras.pdf"
Posted by
ASENNA
July 17, 2010 at 18:45
http://www.rss.org.uk/[…]/3452_Speed%20cameras%20Mountain%20nov04.pdf
................................................................CRAPSPEEDS CREDIBILITY GAP. See the graph on page 10 , the mythical fatality gap is blown out of the water.Dr. Mountain , no great fan in particular of speed cameras , also believes they give " worthwhile " benefits.
................................................................CRAPSPEEDS CREDIBILITY GAP. See the graph on page 10 , the mythical fatality gap is blown out of the water.Dr. Mountain , no great fan in particular of speed cameras , also believes they give " worthwhile " benefits.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 17, 2010 at 19:11
PAUL SMITH AND PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.
"Paul had previously gathered here, various methods that he found, to sidestep speeding fines, however they were removed some time ago now,as they were not appropriate to the rapidly growing, and serious Road Safety Campaign that Safe Speed has now become ".
........................................................
The above refers to the disgusting suggestions by the founder of Crapspeed to avoid prosecution for speeding by getting the notice sent to the houses of recently dead people , a thoughtful gift to the next of kin. The comments refer to a page on their website , now removed.I invite anyone to read the following discussion, in which Smith plays an active part,on how to pervert the course of justice and get away with it and come to any other conclusion than that the founder of Crapspeed was a very dodgy and devious fellow. And that it is reasonable to conclude such a group with such nasty beginnings is not to be trusted even today.
..........................................................
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
"Paul had previously gathered here, various methods that he found, to sidestep speeding fines, however they were removed some time ago now,as they were not appropriate to the rapidly growing, and serious Road Safety Campaign that Safe Speed has now become ".
........................................................
The above refers to the disgusting suggestions by the founder of Crapspeed to avoid prosecution for speeding by getting the notice sent to the houses of recently dead people , a thoughtful gift to the next of kin. The comments refer to a page on their website , now removed.I invite anyone to read the following discussion, in which Smith plays an active part,on how to pervert the course of justice and get away with it and come to any other conclusion than that the founder of Crapspeed was a very dodgy and devious fellow. And that it is reasonable to conclude such a group with such nasty beginnings is not to be trusted even today.
..........................................................
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
Posted by
safesteve
July 17, 2010 at 21:13
The fatality gap is clear to see, the issue is that they presented it incorrectly.
Like I said to you, it is not "fully endorsed by safespeeders"; how you can say it is when I've given you over-riding (subsequent) proof that it isn't; how can that link I gave not counter your claim?
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
Reader: watch how asenna doesn't answer those questions!
Oh, and I cannot help but notice how you have conveniently quoted: you missed out the following (how selective of you):
"Please note that neither Safe Speed or Paul, ever recommend Law breaking of any kind. "
- which is correct as they were not "suggestions" or "advice" as you wrongly continue to claim without any supporting evidence.
Posted by safesteve July 14, 2010 at 00:40
"advice" You are twisting things. Where did he say "I recommend you" or "I advise you" or "you should" or words to that effect?
Reader: notice how that continues to go unacknowledged.
Like I said to you, it is not "fully endorsed by safespeeders"; how you can say it is when I've given you over-riding (subsequent) proof that it isn't; how can that link I gave not counter your claim?
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
Reader: watch how asenna doesn't answer those questions!
Oh, and I cannot help but notice how you have conveniently quoted: you missed out the following (how selective of you):
"Please note that neither Safe Speed or Paul, ever recommend Law breaking of any kind. "
- which is correct as they were not "suggestions" or "advice" as you wrongly continue to claim without any supporting evidence.
Posted by safesteve July 14, 2010 at 00:40
"advice" You are twisting things. Where did he say "I recommend you" or "I advise you" or "you should" or words to that effect?
Reader: notice how that continues to go unacknowledged.
Posted by
safesteve
July 17, 2010 at 21:22
[asenna]"See the graph on page 10 , the mythical fatality gap is blown out of the water."
Are you talking about the one that end at the year 2000 LOL - that's so great, thanks for the laugh spindrift.
Care to remind us where the trend just starts to emerge?
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
The only think that's blown out of the water is your own credibility - I mean, did you even THINK to check where the axis on your linked graph ends? Isn't that a really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY obvious thing to check first?
Oh wait, aren't you the one who still believes there is a zero on a logarithmic axis?!!!!
Are you talking about the one that end at the year 2000 LOL - that's so great, thanks for the laugh spindrift.
Care to remind us where the trend just starts to emerge?
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
The only think that's blown out of the water is your own credibility - I mean, did you even THINK to check where the axis on your linked graph ends? Isn't that a really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY obvious thing to check first?
Oh wait, aren't you the one who still believes there is a zero on a logarithmic axis?!!!!
Posted by
ASENNA
July 18, 2010 at 04:36
Are you talking about the one that end at the year 2000 LOL - that's so great, thanks for the laugh spindrift.
Care to remind us where the trend just starts to emerge?
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html"
1994 according to you and 1991 according to the tax dodgers.
Both dates covered by your doctored graph . I mean, did you even THINK to check where the axis on your graph ends and starts? Isn't that a really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY obvious thing to check first? Oh wait, aren't you the one who still believes there will be zero casualties in 2015 according to the dodgy dossier fully endorsed and posted as compelling evidence of the fatality gap on this forum by the current safespeed boss no less ?!!!!.
Reader , notice how safespeeds mouthpiece continues to deny the fact that its founder actively discussed and encouraged debate on how to pervert the course of justice.
A page from the current website:
"Paul had previously gathered here various methods that he found, to sidestep speeding fines, however they were removed some time ago now,as they were not appropriate ....
READERS , CAN YOU GUESS WHAT THESE INAPPROPRIATE METHODS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ? Do they perhaps involve insulting the dead and illegal payments to students and other third parties ?
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
Care to remind us where the trend just starts to emerge?
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html"
1994 according to you and 1991 according to the tax dodgers.
Both dates covered by your doctored graph . I mean, did you even THINK to check where the axis on your graph ends and starts? Isn't that a really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY obvious thing to check first? Oh wait, aren't you the one who still believes there will be zero casualties in 2015 according to the dodgy dossier fully endorsed and posted as compelling evidence of the fatality gap on this forum by the current safespeed boss no less ?!!!!.
Reader , notice how safespeeds mouthpiece continues to deny the fact that its founder actively discussed and encouraged debate on how to pervert the course of justice.
A page from the current website:
"Paul had previously gathered here various methods that he found, to sidestep speeding fines, however they were removed some time ago now,as they were not appropriate ....
READERS , CAN YOU GUESS WHAT THESE INAPPROPRIATE METHODS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ? Do they perhaps involve insulting the dead and illegal payments to students and other third parties ?
http://groups.google.co.uk/[…]&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7
Posted by
safesteve
July 18, 2010 at 13:05
[asenna]"1994 according to you "
Really? Prove that please – I bet you can’t!
Let’s recap some of my posts to you:
Posted by safesteve July 09, 2010 at 11:50
"Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000, "
You even quoted those exact words [ASENNA July 09, 2010 at 17:43].
Posted by safesteve July 09, 2010 at 21:57
"strictly speaking, the gradient remains in proportion to the value - this is fact. Also, this is what we saw until 2000.
For the time period between 1950 to 2000, we have benefited from reduction of casualties (accounting for net distance travelled) in proportion to the prior value of about 5-8%, then it abruptly fell to 2% at about 2000. The SCPs started forming at that time; what else happened?
...
Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000"
There seems to be a bit of a theme with 2000 - yes?
1994 isn’t mentioned at all - yes?
So can you quote and prove where I said 1994; or does your ineptitude with graphs actually extend to simple number reading?
Look again:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Pop-Quiz!
Which is the first year that the red thingy had been outside of the yellow oojamaflip? (I have to use very simple descriptions for you as you obviously don’t understand basic graphical terms) Tricky one, huh!
[asenna]"Oh wait, aren't you the one who still believes there will be zero casualties in 2015"
Nope, I made no such claim for any year and I bet you cannot prove me wrong! This is the forth time I proved otherwise:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
Reconcile that for us, please.
Notice reader, how he didn’t answer the previous pertinent question, as predicted.
Shoe on other foot:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Aren't you the person who thought the line on that graph would cross zero at 2035? [Posted by ASENNA July 05, 2010 at 10:13]
Clearly your obsession is getting the better of any judgement you might have had.
[asenna]"Reader , notice how safespeeds mouthpiece continues to deny the fact that its founder actively discussed and encouraged debate on how to pervert the course of justice."
Again you are trying to twist things to hide your error!
I actually said there was no "suggestion" or "advice". I did already say there was discussion/debate about the legality of various methods:
Posted by safesteve July 13, 2010 at 19:53
>>>>>>>>
To make it clear to you, or at least the reader (it’s fairly obvious you wouldn’t allow yourself to concede): that was obviously a discussion about the legal validity of an idea.
[PS]"Could it be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or not?"
It looks like I have to repeat myself to you; odd how you didn't acknowledge this when I first pointed this out to you:
[me earlier to you]"You should digest your own link. The issue was nothing more than a legal query, as well as a comment about what someone else brought up, not "advice" as you wrongly described. Nice try!"
Also, the response was following that idea from someone else [Alasdair Baxter].
‘This is how the idea could work, but is it legally workable’? is not “advice” by anyone's standards (except yours apparently).
<<<<<<<<<<
I notice how you’ve also moved your goalposts from “suggested” and “advice”. Good show!
The page you so desperately hang on to also said this:
“We do not recommend or condone law breaking. We are not lawyers and the content on this page are simply ideas not recommendations. Our interest in this instance is to collect ideas for research purposes.”
Either way, it doesn’t get you out of the ever deeper hole you are digging yourself with your ineptitude with simple numbers. Several times you have tried to refute this:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Each time you tried, you ended up embarrassing yourself (1994? 2035? Where a graph ends?). Each time you try, you further show the reader that the Safe Speed fatality gap argument is actually withstanding scrutiny :c) Are you sure you want to continue?
Really? Prove that please – I bet you can’t!
Let’s recap some of my posts to you:
Posted by safesteve July 09, 2010 at 11:50
"Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000, "
You even quoted those exact words [ASENNA July 09, 2010 at 17:43].
Posted by safesteve July 09, 2010 at 21:57
"strictly speaking, the gradient remains in proportion to the value - this is fact. Also, this is what we saw until 2000.
For the time period between 1950 to 2000, we have benefited from reduction of casualties (accounting for net distance travelled) in proportion to the prior value of about 5-8%, then it abruptly fell to 2% at about 2000. The SCPs started forming at that time; what else happened?
...
Getting back to the point: this mathematically bound trend has been consistent since 1950 all the way to 2000"
There seems to be a bit of a theme with 2000 - yes?
1994 isn’t mentioned at all - yes?
So can you quote and prove where I said 1994; or does your ineptitude with graphs actually extend to simple number reading?
Look again:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Pop-Quiz!
Which is the first year that the red thingy had been outside of the yellow oojamaflip? (I have to use very simple descriptions for you as you obviously don’t understand basic graphical terms) Tricky one, huh!
[asenna]"Oh wait, aren't you the one who still believes there will be zero casualties in 2015"
Nope, I made no such claim for any year and I bet you cannot prove me wrong! This is the forth time I proved otherwise:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/[…]/viewtopic.php?p=225291#p225291
Reconcile that for us, please.
Notice reader, how he didn’t answer the previous pertinent question, as predicted.
Shoe on other foot:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Aren't you the person who thought the line on that graph would cross zero at 2035? [Posted by ASENNA July 05, 2010 at 10:13]
Clearly your obsession is getting the better of any judgement you might have had.
[asenna]"Reader , notice how safespeeds mouthpiece continues to deny the fact that its founder actively discussed and encouraged debate on how to pervert the course of justice."
Again you are trying to twist things to hide your error!
I actually said there was no "suggestion" or "advice". I did already say there was discussion/debate about the legality of various methods:
Posted by safesteve July 13, 2010 at 19:53
>>>>>>>>
To make it clear to you, or at least the reader (it’s fairly obvious you wouldn’t allow yourself to concede): that was obviously a discussion about the legal validity of an idea.
[PS]"Could it be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or not?"
It looks like I have to repeat myself to you; odd how you didn't acknowledge this when I first pointed this out to you:
[me earlier to you]"You should digest your own link. The issue was nothing more than a legal query, as well as a comment about what someone else brought up, not "advice" as you wrongly described. Nice try!"
Also, the response was following that idea from someone else [Alasdair Baxter].
‘This is how the idea could work, but is it legally workable’? is not “advice” by anyone's standards (except yours apparently).
<<<<<<<<<<
I notice how you’ve also moved your goalposts from “suggested” and “advice”. Good show!
The page you so desperately hang on to also said this:
“We do not recommend or condone law breaking. We are not lawyers and the content on this page are simply ideas not recommendations. Our interest in this instance is to collect ideas for research purposes.”
Either way, it doesn’t get you out of the ever deeper hole you are digging yourself with your ineptitude with simple numbers. Several times you have tried to refute this:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Each time you tried, you ended up embarrassing yourself (1994? 2035? Where a graph ends?). Each time you try, you further show the reader that the Safe Speed fatality gap argument is actually withstanding scrutiny :c) Are you sure you want to continue?
Posted by
safesteve
July 18, 2010 at 13:42
Ah, I see what you did. You are making out that I am a spokesperson for Safe Speed such that I must actually mean 1994.
Let's clarify. The page does say "The deviation starts in about 1994" which you can see (goes from lower bar to higher bar), but the trend doesn't leave the 95% confidence interval envelope until 2000. I doubt you will understand that as you still haven't corrected your silly perception that the graph must show zero at 2035.
That aside, you made several other errors.
Your chart of page 10 doesn't show the change of "road deaths per million vehicle kilometres." over time (like the Safe Speed chart does).
Yours only shows flow rate over time and KSI/slight/all acc over time – not one per the other over time – and not FATALITIES - all on a linear scale (and where is the zero on that linear chart?). So why would anyone expect the charts to show the same things?
You're attempting to compare apples and bricks, then claiming a specific one of them (and oddly not the other) must be wrong because they’re not the same; so who is the one being "devious"?
Let's clarify. The page does say "The deviation starts in about 1994" which you can see (goes from lower bar to higher bar), but the trend doesn't leave the 95% confidence interval envelope until 2000. I doubt you will understand that as you still haven't corrected your silly perception that the graph must show zero at 2035.
That aside, you made several other errors.
Your chart of page 10 doesn't show the change of "road deaths per million vehicle kilometres." over time (like the Safe Speed chart does).
Yours only shows flow rate over time and KSI/slight/all acc over time – not one per the other over time – and not FATALITIES - all on a linear scale (and where is the zero on that linear chart?). So why would anyone expect the charts to show the same things?
You're attempting to compare apples and bricks, then claiming a specific one of them (and oddly not the other) must be wrong because they’re not the same; so who is the one being "devious"?
Posted by
ASENNA
July 18, 2010 at 13:45
Posted by safesteve July 18, 2010 at 13:05
"So can you quote and prove where I said 1994; or does your ineptitude with graphs actually extend to simple number reading?"
Yes. IT IS PRINTED UNDER THE DODGY GRAPH YOU KEEP LINKING TO.
This what it says:
"The deviation starts in about 1994 and coincides precisely with a change in road safety policy."
Good grief , are you the best mouthpiece that Safespeeders could come up with ? Pitiful.
So have you worked out yet when the "fatality " gap started ?
1991 ( TaxAvoiders ) , 1993 ( Smith ) , 1994 ( safespeed and you ), or 2000 ( you again ) ? Or do you just use whatever fits the graph , having already decided what you wanted to prove and using whatever statistical method gets the result you desire. No wonder no serious academic journal will publish such junk.
And have you decided yet exactly how many people speed cameras have killed ? ( hold onto your hats new readers , but the barmy boys actually think speed cameras directly kill people ). Is it 5000 , 10,000 or do you make it up as you go along. With so many to choose from , can you name even one person killed by a speed camera ?
Can you tell us what the deleted Safespeed page contained ?
The one that starts:
"Paul had previously gathered here, various methods that he found, to sidestep speeding fines, however they were removed some time ago now,as they were not appropriate....."
What "various methods "
Were they illegal ?
What are you hiding , as if we did not know.
Am i sure i want to continue ?
Debating with you is like kicking a blind man`s stick away.
"So can you quote and prove where I said 1994; or does your ineptitude with graphs actually extend to simple number reading?"
Yes. IT IS PRINTED UNDER THE DODGY GRAPH YOU KEEP LINKING TO.
This what it says:
"The deviation starts in about 1994 and coincides precisely with a change in road safety policy."
Good grief , are you the best mouthpiece that Safespeeders could come up with ? Pitiful.
So have you worked out yet when the "fatality " gap started ?
1991 ( TaxAvoiders ) , 1993 ( Smith ) , 1994 ( safespeed and you ), or 2000 ( you again ) ? Or do you just use whatever fits the graph , having already decided what you wanted to prove and using whatever statistical method gets the result you desire. No wonder no serious academic journal will publish such junk.
And have you decided yet exactly how many people speed cameras have killed ? ( hold onto your hats new readers , but the barmy boys actually think speed cameras directly kill people ). Is it 5000 , 10,000 or do you make it up as you go along. With so many to choose from , can you name even one person killed by a speed camera ?
Can you tell us what the deleted Safespeed page contained ?
The one that starts:
"Paul had previously gathered here, various methods that he found, to sidestep speeding fines, however they were removed some time ago now,as they were not appropriate....."
What "various methods "
Were they illegal ?
What are you hiding , as if we did not know.
Am i sure i want to continue ?
Debating with you is like kicking a blind man`s stick away.
Posted by
safesteve
July 18, 2010 at 15:00
Remember, you stated [asenna]"1994 according to you " Who? Me?
[asenna] "1994 ( safespeed and you )"
At least you are clear on the matter. Please show where I (safesteve, or Steve on the Safe Speed forum) stated '1994'.
I believe I've only ever said 2000. Will you prove me wrong, or will you evade yet again in yet another attempt to disguise your error?
Your questions about the graph have been answered a few minutes before your response.
[asenna]"Can you tell us what the deleted Safespeed page contained ?"
I won't for the same reason as already explained on the website. The reader can see it for themselves without being misled by your childish selective quoting.
[asenna]"but the barmy boys actually think speed cameras directly kill people"
Who said that? Is this going to be another fantasy that you cannot prove? Obviously there are no “direct” kills (unless camera housing have fallen onto heads). To answer your question, I will again, again, again, again, again, requote something YOU gave to this thread (hold on to your hats old and new readers):
*"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... HAD DAMAGED ROAD SAFETY BY REMOVING TRAFFIC POLICING FROM THE CORE DUTIES OF POLICE FORCES. "*
Do you get it now?
Sixth time's a charm?!?
Let me repeat to you:
Posted by safesteve July 11, 2010 at 19:08
>>>>>>>>
Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
This is the third time I've thrown this back at you - will you evade yet again?
<<<<<<<<
Looks like you did 'evade yet again'. How circular of you! Is your memory now failing you too?
Then there are the negative side effects (something else I gave several times but you didn't acknowledge):
www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf
[asenna] "1994 ( safespeed and you )"
At least you are clear on the matter. Please show where I (safesteve, or Steve on the Safe Speed forum) stated '1994'.
I believe I've only ever said 2000. Will you prove me wrong, or will you evade yet again in yet another attempt to disguise your error?
Your questions about the graph have been answered a few minutes before your response.
[asenna]"Can you tell us what the deleted Safespeed page contained ?"
I won't for the same reason as already explained on the website. The reader can see it for themselves without being misled by your childish selective quoting.
[asenna]"but the barmy boys actually think speed cameras directly kill people"
Who said that? Is this going to be another fantasy that you cannot prove? Obviously there are no “direct” kills (unless camera housing have fallen onto heads). To answer your question, I will again, again, again, again, again, requote something YOU gave to this thread (hold on to your hats old and new readers):
*"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... HAD DAMAGED ROAD SAFETY BY REMOVING TRAFFIC POLICING FROM THE CORE DUTIES OF POLICE FORCES. "*
Do you get it now?
Sixth time's a charm?!?
Let me repeat to you:
Posted by safesteve July 11, 2010 at 19:08
>>>>>>>>
Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
This is the third time I've thrown this back at you - will you evade yet again?
<<<<<<<<
Looks like you did 'evade yet again'. How circular of you! Is your memory now failing you too?
Then there are the negative side effects (something else I gave several times but you didn't acknowledge):
www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf
Posted by
gbell
July 18, 2010 at 16:44
ASENNA said "Britains roads are safer than ever despite Crapspeeds attempts to make them more dangerous."
And obviously this has nothing to do with continuous improvements in vehicle design or re-engineering accident blackspots but everything to do with speed cameras, speed humps and stupidly low speed limits. NOT.
When it was pointed out that Britain's roads were getting safer for decades without speed cameras, speed humps and stupidly low speed limits ASENNA provided a list of things that genuinely helped this to happen. But now he's trying to make out that road safety improvement is all down to speed cameras, speed humps and stupidly low speed limits. ASENNA? ARSEHOLE would be more appropriate. (Thought you were due another insult as you're still dishing them out yourself.)
ASENNA also said "Someone or group seems to be behind a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. "It beggars belief to suggest that taxi drivers are separately and spontaneously giving false details " , said the judge. If you know who is behind this campaign call Crimestoppers now."
It's obvious that ASENNA is trying to blame SafeSpeed for this, which is very patronising because it infers that Britain's population can't come with ideas itself. Mind you, it does come from the same ARSEHOLE who obviously thinks Britain's population can't decide what speed is safe for the prevailing condition and must be forced to drive at a speed determined by somebody behind a desk.
And obviously this has nothing to do with continuous improvements in vehicle design or re-engineering accident blackspots but everything to do with speed cameras, speed humps and stupidly low speed limits. NOT.
When it was pointed out that Britain's roads were getting safer for decades without speed cameras, speed humps and stupidly low speed limits ASENNA provided a list of things that genuinely helped this to happen. But now he's trying to make out that road safety improvement is all down to speed cameras, speed humps and stupidly low speed limits. ASENNA? ARSEHOLE would be more appropriate. (Thought you were due another insult as you're still dishing them out yourself.)
ASENNA also said "Someone or group seems to be behind a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. "It beggars belief to suggest that taxi drivers are separately and spontaneously giving false details " , said the judge. If you know who is behind this campaign call Crimestoppers now."
It's obvious that ASENNA is trying to blame SafeSpeed for this, which is very patronising because it infers that Britain's population can't come with ideas itself. Mind you, it does come from the same ARSEHOLE who obviously thinks Britain's population can't decide what speed is safe for the prevailing condition and must be forced to drive at a speed determined by somebody behind a desk.
Posted by
ASENNA
July 18, 2010 at 17:23
gbell ,see a doctor there are tablets you can take to calm your angry and violent moods.
"Please show where I (safesteve, or Steve on the Safe Speed forum) stated '1994'.
I believe I've only ever said 2000. Will you prove me wrong, or will you evade yet again in yet another attempt to disguise your error?"
IT IS PRINTED UNDER THE DODGY GRAPH YOU KEEP LINKING TO.This what it says:
"The deviation starts in about 1994 and coincides precisely with a change in road safety policy."
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Are safespeed right or wrong on 1994 ? Yes or no ?
Safespeed steve wants to know who said speed cameras kill people. Well , it is on the safespeed website.
"3,657 people who have died would still have been alive at the end of 2001"
"We say speed cameras and the policies that support them are now costing over 1,000 lives every year."
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
We now have to enter the surreal world of Steve and his mates.These are apparently theoretical deaths , deaths that have a reality only on his dodgy graphs. He cannot make a real world connection between these deaths and any actual real road fatality.That is partly because even if a fatality occurred 50 miles away from the nearest speed camera , as far as his absurd calculations are concerned a speed camera was to blame. Old Smithy made no attempt at all to link fatalities to the proximity of a speed camera. His statistics were a form of psychosis occupying the outer frontiers of sanity and safesteve has willingly taken up the baton .You should stop now before you go mad and end up on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watc[…]W-6TmNo&feature=related
"Please show where I (safesteve, or Steve on the Safe Speed forum) stated '1994'.
I believe I've only ever said 2000. Will you prove me wrong, or will you evade yet again in yet another attempt to disguise your error?"
IT IS PRINTED UNDER THE DODGY GRAPH YOU KEEP LINKING TO.This what it says:
"The deviation starts in about 1994 and coincides precisely with a change in road safety policy."
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
Are safespeed right or wrong on 1994 ? Yes or no ?
Safespeed steve wants to know who said speed cameras kill people. Well , it is on the safespeed website.
"3,657 people who have died would still have been alive at the end of 2001"
"We say speed cameras and the policies that support them are now costing over 1,000 lives every year."
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
We now have to enter the surreal world of Steve and his mates.These are apparently theoretical deaths , deaths that have a reality only on his dodgy graphs. He cannot make a real world connection between these deaths and any actual real road fatality.That is partly because even if a fatality occurred 50 miles away from the nearest speed camera , as far as his absurd calculations are concerned a speed camera was to blame. Old Smithy made no attempt at all to link fatalities to the proximity of a speed camera. His statistics were a form of psychosis occupying the outer frontiers of sanity and safesteve has willingly taken up the baton .You should stop now before you go mad and end up on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watc[…]W-6TmNo&feature=related
Posted by
gbell
July 18, 2010 at 19:48
ASENNA said "gbell ,see a doctor there are tablets you can take to calm your angry and violent moods."
So if I insult you I'm angry and violent and need to see a doctor, but if you insult Paul Smith, SafeSpeed, ABD, The Taxpayers' Alliance or drivers who exceed speed limits (as you've done on this and several other threads) that's OK is it? I think that rather tends to vindicate my insults...
ASENNA slates what he calls 'theoretical deaths' but what about the 'theoretical lives saved' the Government used for years to justify its speed camera programme? A study by the Department of Engineering at Liverpool University showed that the number of lives claimed to have been saved by speed cameras was far higher than in reality, and that other devices such as flashing speed indicator signs were much more effective at reducing crashes. So it follows that if we'd have had more speed indicator boards and fewer speed cameras we'd have had fewer crashes - and fewer casualties.
So if I insult you I'm angry and violent and need to see a doctor, but if you insult Paul Smith, SafeSpeed, ABD, The Taxpayers' Alliance or drivers who exceed speed limits (as you've done on this and several other threads) that's OK is it? I think that rather tends to vindicate my insults...
ASENNA slates what he calls 'theoretical deaths' but what about the 'theoretical lives saved' the Government used for years to justify its speed camera programme? A study by the Department of Engineering at Liverpool University showed that the number of lives claimed to have been saved by speed cameras was far higher than in reality, and that other devices such as flashing speed indicator signs were much more effective at reducing crashes. So it follows that if we'd have had more speed indicator boards and fewer speed cameras we'd have had fewer crashes - and fewer casualties.
Posted by
safesteve
July 18, 2010 at 21:23
So I didn't say 1994, only 2000? Let’s revisit your twisted logic later on!
Once again so the hard of thinking can hopefully understand, or be unable to feign ignorance:
There was a slight noticeable deviation starting 1994 but the trend remained within 95% confidence intervals - it wasn't statistically significant (considering the 50 year span); this was in the camera era, but before SCPs. At 2000 the rate, for the first time in 50 years, left the 95% envelope and became statistically significant, and has since deviated ever further. This perfectly coincides with the rollout of the SCPs and their automated prosecutions. Do you even understand the term statistically significant? Am I asking too much for you to understand the significance of the 95%?
I see you linked to a linear plot - so where does that curve cross zero? LOL
And this is the underlying point which you keep evading: despite your repeated attempts, the graph you have shown does not disprove this deviation from trend (1994 or 2000); your graph didn’t even show fatalities, so how could it disprove the Safe Speed fatality gap graph and the conclusion therein?
"Safespeed steve wants to know who said speed cameras kill people."
Actually, I asked who said "cameras *DIRECTLY* kill people"; I've highlighted for you (in upper case) a key word which you appear to have missed in your response. So along with your arithmetic abilities and your memory, it seems your eyesight is now failing you too. Do you want to try again? Remember: "directly".
[asenna]"He cannot make a real world connection between these deaths and any actual real road fatality. That is partly because even if a fatality occurred 50 miles away from the nearest speed camera "
What was it you said IT IS PRINTED within the text YOU LINKed TO.
*"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... HAD DAMAGED ROAD SAFETY BY REMOVING TRAFFIC POLICING FROM THE CORE DUTIES OF POLICE FORCES. "*
No real world connection there - right?
Based on your own twisted logic: you must have said that because you linked to it - so that's what you said – right?
So is what YOU SAID a real-world explanation, or not?
>>>>>>>>
Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
<<<<<<<<
Now unless you want to argue that traffic police do nothing to aid road safety….
What about www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf which you twice evaded; will you make it third time lucky?
Once again so the hard of thinking can hopefully understand, or be unable to feign ignorance:
There was a slight noticeable deviation starting 1994 but the trend remained within 95% confidence intervals - it wasn't statistically significant (considering the 50 year span); this was in the camera era, but before SCPs. At 2000 the rate, for the first time in 50 years, left the 95% envelope and became statistically significant, and has since deviated ever further. This perfectly coincides with the rollout of the SCPs and their automated prosecutions. Do you even understand the term statistically significant? Am I asking too much for you to understand the significance of the 95%?
I see you linked to a linear plot - so where does that curve cross zero? LOL
And this is the underlying point which you keep evading: despite your repeated attempts, the graph you have shown does not disprove this deviation from trend (1994 or 2000); your graph didn’t even show fatalities, so how could it disprove the Safe Speed fatality gap graph and the conclusion therein?
"Safespeed steve wants to know who said speed cameras kill people."
Actually, I asked who said "cameras *DIRECTLY* kill people"; I've highlighted for you (in upper case) a key word which you appear to have missed in your response. So along with your arithmetic abilities and your memory, it seems your eyesight is now failing you too. Do you want to try again? Remember: "directly".
[asenna]"He cannot make a real world connection between these deaths and any actual real road fatality. That is partly because even if a fatality occurred 50 miles away from the nearest speed camera "
What was it you said IT IS PRINTED within the text YOU LINKed TO.
*"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success..... HAD DAMAGED ROAD SAFETY BY REMOVING TRAFFIC POLICING FROM THE CORE DUTIES OF POLICE FORCES. "*
No real world connection there - right?
Based on your own twisted logic: you must have said that because you linked to it - so that's what you said – right?
So is what YOU SAID a real-world explanation, or not?
>>>>>>>>
Deaths are a result of bad driving. Do police detect and/or halt bad driving – yes! Do cameras detect and/or halt bad driving – no, they only capture available evidence of technical infringements. Cameras have replaced police on the back of false and exaggerated claims. So all else equal, isn’t it obvious the roads wouldn’t be as safe?
<<<<<<<<
Now unless you want to argue that traffic police do nothing to aid road safety….
What about www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf which you twice evaded; will you make it third time lucky?
Posted by
ASENNA
July 18, 2010 at 21:29
gbell,
"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee "
Ding Dong .
"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee "
Ding Dong .
Posted by
gbell
July 19, 2010 at 20:14
ASENNA said "gbell,
"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee "
Ding Dong ."
But you're the one who's run out of arguments...
"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee "
Ding Dong ."
But you're the one who's run out of arguments...
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 21, 2010 at 19:06
Glad to see after a week or so, ASENNA has resorted to insults as expected.
Posted by
slipdegarcon
July 29, 2010 at 14:28
"The likes of ASENNA are best beaten be weight of opinion rather than argument (IMHO).Or getting his posts deleted . Like most vacuous halfwits and loud mouths , he likes to dish it out but can`t take it."
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Posted by
chriswilson
August 09, 2010 at 07:26
interesting comments - it looks like the weddings off!
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate