Figures etc at SafeSpeed

Paul Smith said:

Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning the
UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

safespeed.org.ukfatality.htmlOpen ↗

Comments welcome. (not cross posted)

Oh no, I haven't seen a post from P**l S***h for weeks. I've killfiled him and blocked the thread. I
urge everyone else to do the same.
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning
the UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

safespeed.org.ukfatality.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Comments welcome. (not cross posted)

Quoted message said:

Oh no, I haven't seen a post from P**l S***h for weeks. I've killfiled him and blocked the thread.
I urge everyone else to do the same.

That's it! Do the ostrich!
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

I don't understand Mr Smith why is he posting here and just exactly is wrong with using technology
to catch people breaking the law i.e. speeding. Why is a device for law enforcement bundled with
driving a vehicle when incapable of controlling said machine due to the effects of alcohol/drug use.
Lets stop playing games with the speed cameras and those who glorify acts of criminal damage against
them. You break the speed limit you pay the fine simple. hopefully a little less speed in built up
areas will see a reduction in injury to all parties when the inevitable happens. So after all that,
and yes I do drive and sometimes go too fast, but if I trip a camera then it's nobody else fault,
I'll just pay up and slow down simple. But what I wont do and I promise I wont do is spout facts and
figures half truths and down right lies in an attempt to justify speeding. The speed limit is set
live with it.

Colin Slow down give badgers a chance

Robby's mate

robby said:

I don't understand Mr Smith why is he posting here and just exactly is wrong with using technology
to catch people breaking the law i.e. speeding. Why is a device for law enforcement bundled with
driving a vehicle when incapable of controlling said machine due to the effects of alcohol/drug
use. Lets stop playing games with the speed cameras and those who glorify acts of criminal damage
against them. You break the speed limit you pay the fine simple. hopefully a little less speed in
built up areas will see a reduction in injury to all parties when the inevitable happens. So after
all that, and yes I do drive and sometimes go too fast, but if I trip a camera then it's nobody
else fault, I'll just pay up and slow down simple. But what I wont do and I promise I wont do is
spout facts and figures half truths and down right lies in an attempt to justify speeding. The
speed limit is set live with it.

According to projections on the first page referenced, 3,500 may no longer be able to "live with it"
because they are dead.

I've posted here (and not cross posted) because one of the inhabitants of uk.r.c expressed
an interest.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's it! Do the ostrich!

Many of us are not doing any such thing - we're just sick of the sight of an obsessive single issue
fanatic armed with dodgily interpreted 'statistics' and a tenuous grip on reality.

HTH, HAND

Tim
--
Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

I not sure why some people have such feelings towards speed cameras. In my experience its the same
people who react the same way to parking tickets.

It's VERY simple, so simple, my 2 year old niece could understand.

YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED

If you want to avoid the fine SLOW DOWN. I have lost a great number of friends in RTA's both as
pedestrians, cyclists & drivers. Some of these may have been avoidable !

All the arguments about cameras being used to raise funds is irrelevant, it is the same as having a
police officer standing there without the associated costs. It allows the police to place resources
elsewhere.

If you stay within the law, you won't get a ticket. I feel that all speed cameras should be set to a
maximum of 5 mph above the speed limit, if this means more people get caught, so be it.

Regards,

Andrew

Hear hear! I couldn't have said it better!

Steve 😉
--

"robby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't understand Mr Smith why is he posting here and just exactly is

wrong

Quoted message said:

with using technology to catch people breaking the law i.e. speeding. Why

is

Quoted message said:

a device for law enforcement bundled with driving a vehicle when incapable of controlling said
machine due to the effects of alcohol/drug use. Lets stop playing games with the speed cameras and
those who glorify acts of criminal damage against them. You break the speed limit you pay the fine
simple. hopefully a little less speed in built up areas will see a

reduction

Quoted message said:

in injury to all parties when the inevitable happens. So after all that,

and

Quoted message said:

yes I do drive and sometimes go too fast, but if I trip a camera then it's nobody else fault, I'll
just pay up and slow down simple. But what I wont

do

Quoted message said:

and I promise I wont do is spout facts and figures half truths and down right lies in an attempt
to justify speeding. The speed limit is set live with it.

Colin Slow down give badgers a chance

Robby's mate

Sorry, I fear my previous message may be misinterpreted.

I have no sympathy at all for people who break the speed limit, regardless of whether they judge the
speed limit to be set at the wrong level. The speed is set, and we agree to the limits and all other
driving/riding laws by being on the road in the first place. If you go over the speed limit and get
a fine, then it's tough luck - but more worrying it's tough luck on the potential RTA victim. So for
those who feel it necessary to break the speed limit, please spare a thought for the innocent you
may be involved with.

Steve ;0
--

"sda" <.> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hear hear! I couldn't have said it better!

Steve 😉

Michael MacClancy said:

Paul Smith said:

Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning
the UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

safespeed.org.ukfatality.htmlOpen ↗

Comments welcome. (not cross posted)

Oh no, I haven't seen a post from P**l S***h for weeks. I've killfiled him and blocked the thread.
I urge everyone else to do the same.
--
Michael MacClancy

Andrew B said:

YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED

--
A speed limit is NOT a target.

Paul Smith said:

Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning the
UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

safespeed.org.ukfatality.htmlOpen ↗

Comments welcome. (not cross posted)

[censored].

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning the
UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

safespeed.org.ukfatality.htmlOpen ↗

Comments welcome.

Your treatment of numbers is silly. Have you any theoretical basis for putting the casualty figures
as log graphs etc. ?

No matter what else you say ... you say. "Something has happened to make British roads more
dangerous since 1993. "

Rubbish. The roads are safer. simple as that.

"James Hodson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andrew B said:

YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED

--
A speed limit is NOT a target.

No, but it is a maximum.

As long as speed limits are appropriate*, then I don't think there is a problem with automated
enforcement. Speed cameras should be set to as close as zero-tolerance as the technology used can
measure accurately.

*They generally are, though I'd like to see more 20MPH zones (minus speed humps mind), dual
carriageways without at-grade junctions at 60MPH and an 80 MPH motorway speed limit.

All my opinion, based on laymans observation, with no scientific basis

W K said:

Quoted message said:

Further to discussions yesterday I have made a draft page and spreadsheet available concerning
the UK's loss of previous fatal accident trend in 1993.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

safespeed.org.ukfatality.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Comments welcome.

Quoted message said:

Your treatment of numbers is silly.

Oh no it isn't.

Quoted message said:

Have you any theoretical basis for putting the casualty figures as log graphs etc. ?

Yes. The annual reduction in fatalities rate has stayed at around 5% per annum for most of the
period. Such a constant factor reduction shows on a log scale graph as a straight line. That makes
any change in trend more obvious. (log graphs are also given with a conventional scale for the
suspicious)

Quoted message said:

No matter what else you say ... you say. "Something has happened to make British roads more
dangerous since 1993. "

Quoted message said:

Rubbish. The roads are safer. simple as that.

You're more or less correct. I'll fix that. Thanks.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

Andrew B said:

I not sure why some people have such feelings towards speed cameras. In my experience its the same
people who react the same way to parking tickets.

Quoted message said:

It's VERY simple, so simple, my 2 year old niece could understand.

Quoted message said:

YOU SPEED = YOU BREAK THE LAW = YOU GET FINED

Quoted message said:

If you want to avoid the fine SLOW DOWN. I have lost a great number of friends in RTA's both as
pedestrians, cyclists & drivers. Some of these may have been avoidable !

Quoted message said:

All the arguments about cameras being used to raise funds is irrelevant, it is the same as having a
police officer standing there without the associated costs. It allows the police to place resources
elsewhere.

Quoted message said:

If you stay within the law, you won't get a ticket. I feel that all speed cameras should be set to
a maximum of 5 mph above the speed limit, if this means more people get caught, so be it.

Very good. Now read

safespeed.org.ukfatality.htmlOpen ↗

And tell me what's caused (or might have caused) the deadly change in trend.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No. What do you think might alter road safety?

Less arrogant, ill educated drivers, which would naturally lead to less speeding idiots, pleasantly
leading to a decrease in apologists for such idiots. Get the picture?

Sorry, Paul, I can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Tim
--
Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No. What do you think might alter road safety?

Less arrogant, ill educated drivers, which would naturally lead to less speeding idiots, pleasantly
leading to a decrease in apologists for such idiots. Get the picture?

Sorry, Paul, I can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Tim
--
Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:44:28 GMT, "Tim Dunne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[Government policy might affect road safety]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. What do you think might alter road safety?

Quoted message said:

Less arrogant, ill educated drivers, which would naturally lead to less speeding idiots, pleasantly
leading to a decrease in apologists for such idiots. Get the picture?

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Paul, I can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Prat.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Prat.

Nice to see I found your level. To be called a prat by you is such a reassertion of my sanity.

Tim
--
Sent from Brum, UK... ...scheduled completion Sept 2003 'What's keeping the White House white? Is it
chalk, is it fog, is it fear?' Steve Skaith, 'America For Beginners' Look, mum, an anorak on a bike!
Check out www.nervouscyclist.org