Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 06:49 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:r59uppsopv3w.7urv7km2k96b.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:00:17 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >> Right, so the fact that different people's perceptions of what is safe >> makes >> no difference to road safety. Gotcha. > > my original answer was to a question I took to mean people have differing > abilities, not perceptions. > > The fact perceptions of safe vary widely is one reason we have speed > limits. > But not minimum speed limits to create a band and thus even out the disparity between different perceptions of safe speeds.
From: Matt B on 30 Jul 2010 06:59 On 30/07/2010 11:10, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:02:29 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >> Speed cameras as we know them today were introduced in 1992. By 1995 >> they were a common feature, and in 1999 the so-called "Safety Camera >> Partnerships" were introduced. In 2007 the safety partnerships began to >> dissolve, and camera began being decommissioned. Let's look at what >> happened to the road fatality trend before, during and after that core >> camera period: >> >> Average fatality drops year-on-year... >> 1990-1994: 345 >> 1995-2006: 40 >> 2007-2009: 317 > > the funding change in 2007 didn't immediatly reduce camera sites, They were on the decline by then. But even if we say 2007 was part of the core time we get: 1990-1994: 345 1995-2007: 54 2008-2009: 408 The camera years were a black period for road casualty reduction. > that may > happen now in 2010, which rather spoils this attempt to prove cameras make > things worse. The decline in their use is accelerating, as now is the fatality drop rate again. -- Matt B
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 06:58 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:tbzsx7r5ft52.1einynx0gosxb.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:17:54 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >> "so it varies from person to person. Why is that a >> problem?" > > read my other post, I thought you meant ability, not perception. > In this instance I see little difference since an individual's perception of what is safe will depend on their perception of their abilities. However optimistic that perception might be in the case of those who drive at high speed.
From: Matt B on 30 Jul 2010 08:02 On 30/07/2010 12:12, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:59:28 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >> The decline in their use is accelerating, as now is the fatality drop >> rate again. > > as you have those other figures do you have total speed cameras in use by > year? No, I couldn't find it. -- Matt B
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 08:07
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:a0pkj3ey30hg$.xjjgliqz0zi2.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:58:59 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>> read my other post, I thought you meant ability, not perception. >>> >> In this instance I see little difference since an individual's perception >> of >> what is safe will depend on their perception of their abilities. However >> optimistic that perception might be in the case of those who drive at >> high >> speed. > > OK whatever, how is any of this a case against speed limits? > Where have I argued against speed limits? |