P**l Sm*th

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

I wonder how the speedophile's speedophile will react to the fact
that, contrary to his thesis, the road fatality figures are
now the lowest since records began?

Underreporting?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

Just zis Guy said:

I wonder how the speedophile's speedophile will react to the fact
that, contrary to his thesis, the road fatality figures are
now the lowest since records began? I might even wander along and ask
him... No, perhaps not.

One of his more sycophantic supporters has suggested on Paul's web
forum that the drop may be due to "the SafeSpeed message getting
across". Paul himself has produced a press release:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/

wherein he claims that less than 2000 people would be dying on the
roads each year if we didn't prosecute motorists for driving illegally.

Bonkers, the lot of them.

At 8 Jul 2005 03:13:06 -0700, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of
the following:

Quoted message said:

One of his more sycophantic supporters has suggested on Paul's web
forum that the drop may be due to "the SafeSpeed message getting
across".

Cloff! I knew they'd find *some* way of justifying their [censored]
that was not in some way related to the obvious fact that the claim is
complete bollocks :-D

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

I wonder how the speedophile's speedophile will react to the fact
that, contrary to his thesis, the road fatality figures are
now the lowest since records began? I might even wander along and ask
him... No, perhaps not.

How do the figures break down between peds, cyclists and motorists? Is
there a general reduction in each or has one group shown a more notable
reduction?

James

Quoted message said:

Cloff! I knew they'd find *some* way of justifying their [censored]
that was not in some way related to the obvious fact that the claim is
complete bollocks :-D

"We note that road deaths are down in both the areas without camera
partnerships. Down in Durham (24%), and down in North Yorkshire (9%)
(both by more than the average change)."

***Regression to the mean!*** :-)

At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:47:28 +0100, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by James Grabowski
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

How do the figures break down between peds, cyclists and motorists? Is
there a general reduction in each or has one group shown a more notable
reduction?

See for yourself:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_038553.hcsp

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I wonder how the speedophile's speedophile will react to the fact
that, contrary to his thesis, the road fatality figures are
now the lowest since records began? I might even wander along and ask
him... No, perhaps not.

He reacted with PR208, "A triumph of engineering over policy", which
highlights the loss of trend due to speed camera policy - a trend that
should have brought the annual death toll down to around 2,000 instead of
the 3,000 plus reported - and shows that other factors masked the carnage
caused by speed camera policy.

The release also notes areas that rely on speed cameras saw a rise in
road deaths, while those that do not saw the death toll fall.

--[ Quote ]--
We note that road deaths are down in both the areas without camera
partnerships. Down in Durham (24%), and down in North Yorkshire (9%)
(both by more than the average change).

Road deaths were up by a shameful 18% in North Wales, where arch speed
camera proponent Richard Brunstrom is Chief Constable. Wales overall saw
road deaths rise by 16%.
--[ End quote ]--

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

you know? said:

At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:47:28 +0100, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by James Grabowski
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do the figures break down between peds, cyclists and motorists? Is
there a general reduction in each or has one group shown a more notable
reduction?

Quoted message said:

See for yourself:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_-
transstats_038553.hcsp

Yoda will be here, threatening to sue people any moment.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

At 08 Jul 2005 13:35:20 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Geoff Lane
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder how the speedophile's speedophile will react to the fact
that, contrary to his thesis, the road fatality figures are
now the lowest since records began? I might even wander along and ask
him... No, perhaps not.

Quoted message said:

He reacted with PR208, "A triumph of engineering over policy", which
highlights the loss of trend due to speed camera policy - a trend that
should have brought the annual death toll down to around 2,000 instead of
the 3,000 plus reported - and shows that other factors masked the carnage
caused by speed camera policy.

No surprise there, then. He didn't find space to mention that the
roads with the worst trends were those which are least likely to have
cameras, or that the increase in fatalities is restricted to
motorcyclists? Thought not.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Geoff Lane said:

He reacted with PR208, "A triumph of engineering over policy", which
highlights the loss of trend due to speed camera policy - a trend that
should have brought the annual death toll down to around 2,000 instead of
the 3,000 plus reported - and shows that other factors masked the carnage
caused by speed camera policy.

In other words, Paul claims that speed cameras are responsible for over
a third of all road deaths. Funny how nobody else has noticed : or is
there a nationwide conspiracy to cover up the truth ?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

No surprise there, then. He didn't find space to mention that the
roads with the worst trends were those which are least likely to have
cameras, or that the increase in fatalities is restricted to
motorcyclists? Thought not.

It may come as a surprise to you, but he published information about how
the rules prevent the placement of speed cameras where they could actually
be of benefit. This is one of the major flaws of speed camera policy.

He did, however, note the contribution that improvements in car secondary
safety have made. Of course, motorcyclists aren't driving cars at the time
they become fatalities and so don't have the benefit of that factor and so
it's no surprise to see an increase in a sector not benefitting from a
major factor is reducing road deaths.

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1120834287.049196.15010
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

In other words, Paul claims that speed cameras are responsible for over
a third of all road deaths. Funny how nobody else has noticed : or is
there a nationwide conspiracy to cover up the truth ?

Not speed cameras; speed camera *policy*. This is the rules that prevent
the placement of cameras where they might actually do some good. This is
the replacement of traffic police with speed cameras, even the disbanding
of traffic divisions, so that dangerous and careless drivers can continue
their carnage unchecked. This is the erroneous messages drummed into the
public every time a TV or radio station has unsold advertising space - "you
will be safe if you obey the speed limit" (and drive at 30mph into the back
of a stationary JCB?). etc.

I have a feeling that the trend would have started to flatten out by now,
so the real figure may well be above two thousand, but it would be
significantly less than the three-thousand-plus it is now. So, yes, speed
camera *policy* is potentially killing a thousand or so every year.

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

At 08 Jul 2005 15:26:22 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Geoff Lane
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No surprise there, then. He didn't find space to mention that the
roads with the worst trends were those which are least likely to have
cameras, or that the increase in fatalities is restricted to
motorcyclists? Thought not.

Quoted message said:

It may come as a surprise to you, but he published information about how
the rules prevent the placement of speed cameras where they could actually
be of benefit. This is one of the major flaws of speed camera policy.

I know that this flaw exists. The policy which prevents siting in the
most appropriate places is largely a result of the craven reaction of
politicians to hysterical anti-camera posturing.

Quoted message said:

He did, however, note the contribution that improvements in car secondary
safety have made. Of course, motorcyclists aren't driving cars at the time
they become fatalities and so don't have the benefit of that factor and so
it's no surprise to see an increase in a sector not benefitting from a
major factor is reducing road deaths.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The 2000 deaths he claims are the result
of extrapolating a straight line when he should be using an
exponential decay (as is evident form plotting the trend over many
years). What shortfall there is, is less than the increase in
motorcyclist fatalities. And as I said, the roads with the worst
fatality trends are the ones which are least likely to have cameras.

So his 2,000 figure is Complete Bollocks, which I guess is why nobody
takes it seriously.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It may come as a surprise to you, but he published information about
how the rules prevent the placement of speed cameras where they could
actually be of benefit. This is one of the major flaws of speed camera
policy.

I know that this flaw exists. The policy which prevents siting in the
most appropriate places is largely a result of the craven reaction of
politicians to hysterical anti-camera posturing.

I think you have the cause of that flaw completely wrong. The policy
allows siting only where the 85th percentile drive above the limit, which
means where many of the most experienced and safest drivers in this
country consider the limit too low. This means that cameras can only be
sited where they stand a chance of generating revenue but can do little
for road safety.

OTOH, the rules prevent the placement of speed cameras where the minority
drive in excess of the speed limit - IOW, where there is a good chance
that speeds in excess of the limit are inappropriately fast and thus
cameras aren't allowed anywhere speeding may actually be dangerous.

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

At 08 Jul 2005 15:34:43 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Geoff Lane
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Not speed cameras; speed camera *policy*. This is the rules that prevent
the placement of cameras where they might actually do some good.

aka the "blood on the streets" criteria, a reaction of craven
politicians to the hysterical anti-enforcement ravings of... people
like Smith.

Quoted message said:

This is
the replacement of traffic police with speed cameras, even the disbanding
of traffic divisions,

This is a canard. The reduction of traffic divisions is the result of
Government policy not to make traffic policing a core duty for forces,
excluding traffic policing from the performance measures. That could
be changed overnight, but I bet the Daily Mail wouldn't like that
either - diverting police from guarding Middle Britain's video
recorders and onto prosecuting Mercedes Man as he exercises his
"superior driving skills"? No, that won't do at all!

Quoted message said:

so that dangerous and careless drivers can continue
their carnage unchecked. This is the erroneous messages drummed into the
public every time a TV or radio station has unsold advertising space - "you
will be safe if you obey the speed limit" (and drive at 30mph into the back
of a stationary JCB?). etc.

I have *never* heard *any* advert say that. I have heard an advert
pointing out - accurately - that the chances of killing a child are
dramatically reduced if you keep below the limit round town.

Quoted message said:

I have a feeling that the trend would have started to flatten out by now,

It flattened out years ago. The figures are on the DfT website, you
can plot them yourself.

Quoted message said:

so the real figure may well be above two thousand, but it would be
significantly less than the three-thousand-plus it is now.

False. If you take out motorcyclists the loss in trend disappears.

Quoted message said:

So, yes, speed
camera *policy* is potentially killing a thousand or so every year.

It may be possible to prove that it is making no difference, but to
claim it is killing people is pure sophistry.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Geoff Lane said:

So, yes, speed
camera *policy* is potentially killing a thousand or so every year.

ITYM "mindless twunts" are *actually* killing *three* thousand or so
each year.

R.

At 08 Jul 2005 15:50:59 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Geoff Lane
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know that this flaw exists. The policy which prevents siting in the
most appropriate places is largely a result of the craven reaction of
politicians to hysterical anti-camera posturing.

Quoted message said:

I think you have the cause of that flaw completely wrong. The policy
allows siting only where the 85th percentile drive above the limit, which
means where many of the most experienced and safest drivers in this
country consider the limit too low.

Ah, the forty billion flies argument. You do know, don't you, that
most drivers overestimate their own skill?

Quoted message said:

This means that cameras can only be
sited where they stand a chance of generating revenue but can do little
for road safety.

Or where there is blood on the streets and it's already too late. But
to claim these facts - which are a reaction to the hysterical
anti-enforcement campaigns of Smith and his ilk - as in some way
vindicating them, is absurd.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

so that dangerous and careless drivers can continue
their carnage unchecked. This is the erroneous messages drummed into the
public every time a TV or radio station has unsold advertising space - "you
will be safe if you obey the speed limit" (and drive at 30mph into the back
of a stationary JCB?). etc.

I have *never* heard *any* advert say that. I have heard an advert
pointing out - accurately - that the chances of killing a child are
dramatically reduced if you keep below the limit round town.

given that you hit them. Why not teach hazard perception and awareness
instead and not hit the child at all?

At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:31:02 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by barry
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none
of the following:

Quoted message said:

given that you hit them. Why not teach hazard perception and awareness
instead and not hit the child at all?

Hey, great idea! Teach the kids to defer at all times to the Almighty
Car, keep them locked up until they can display adult levels of hazard
perception (which of course they can't learn because they are never
exposed to any hazards) and abrogate our responsibility as adults to
take extra care around those who are young and/or vulnerable! With
luck we'll breed a generation of future drivers who will sincerely
believe that the road belongs to them as of right and anyone who gets
in their way deserves what they get.

We could reflect that by passing only the most trivial sentences when
drivers kill and injure others, however egregious their misbehaviour!

Oh, wait...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken