Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:04

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 14:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
If somebody is drowning, should we throw them a speed camera?

Or should we teach them to swim at an earlier age?
The Titanic was going too fast by all accounts - and many people lost their lives as a result, and as a result of a lot of other circumstances. If they had placed a speed camera on an iceberg at the same location in 1913, they could have claimed a reduction in deaths by drowning as a result of their activities!!
Image
The parallel with the Titanic has other features which make it pertinent - it was fitted with state of the art safety features, which were overcome by a circumstance which had not been foreseen, and it carried more lifeboats than the regulations in force required at that time. A bit like airbags - side airbags are yet to be made compulsory. As the stock of older less sophisticated models reduces with age, then injuries will fall too, so long as maintaining them is made compulsory too! :idea:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 13:44 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
ist true - we can never make any accident a "zero" occurrence because humans make mistakes.

All we can do ist minimise und this means minimising the human error with more informed und better training - und this also include how the safety gadget on cars und bikes actually work :wink:

Ist sheer stupidity to place so much faith in an object which can only register speed und be used as cash machine fining over trivial blips. Those who really blat past are usually the ones they never catch as they are not RKs but joy riders etc. :roll:

As for the Maths skills (or rather lack of them :roll: ...) ... I think the sub-marinated ones need to attend an Adult Numeracy course :wink:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 13:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
WildCat wrote:
<snip>

As for the Maths skills (or rather lack of them :roll: ...) ... I think the sub-marinated ones need to attend an Adult Numeracy course :wink:


Oh yes. Their clear-up rate is impressive.

On a more serious note, it is incongruous that they submitted this without a covering note to explain what they meant, and even more incongruous that it has been published in the public domain by the receiving body without appropriate note of cover.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 16:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
It seems as though with Callaghan 'keeping his head down' for reasons which will become more apparent as time passes, Mr.Tea is now in the firing line in respect of incorrect and misleading obfuscation emanating from that organisation.
How he has the nerve to calim the 70% is amazing. If he had claimed, say, 15% it would have seemed a good result, but still open to challenge. To quote 70% is so stupid, bearing-in-mind that the actual figures are in the public domain, that only someone wishing to have their basic honesty and/or common sense questioned would do this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 00:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 00:08
Posts: 84
Location: Ex A590 now Southend-On-Mud, Essex, Now Suffolk border
Cooperman wrote:
It seems as though with Callaghan 'keeping his head down' for reasons which will become more apparent as time passes, Mr.Tea is now in the firing line in respect of incorrect and misleading obfuscation emanating from that organisation.
How he has the nerve to calim the 70% is amazing. If he had claimed, say, 15% it would have seemed a good result, but still open to challenge. To quote 70% is so stupid, bearing-in-mind that the actual figures are in the public domain, that only someone wishing to have their basic honesty and/or common sense questioned would do this.


As per todays Westmorland Gazette, seems he really is too busy to answer questions on time

The Westmorland Gazette has asked a number of questions under the act, including two requests relating to safety cameras.

One question was about the number of tickets issued by mobile and fixed safety cameras in Cumbria, while the other requested the income, expenditure and surplus generated by each safety camera partnership in England.

The first request was answered outside the 20-day deadline.


Tut Tut Slap Wrists :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 17:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
I put an FOI request in to CSCP last week - let's see how long that takes :roll:

Believe me, if they are a day late replying, I will make a formal complaint :lol:

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 21:18 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
If you visit the Cumbria SAFETY Camera Partnership's website, you will find some of these...
Image
The mouseover for this bit of statistical trivia reads "Helpful Information"
I guess it means if you take a detour down a narrow lane to avoid passing a speed camera, you may well encounter somebody else doing the same thing the other way! :(
I suppose it is quite likely that one of these vehicles was exceeding the posted limit - if not, then the most helpful bit of information would be that safety cameras achieve nothing - sensible driving to COAST standards is more useful in saving lives. :oops:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 23:27 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Ernest Marsh wrote:
The Westmorland Gazette wrote:
A four-year report into the effectiveness of safety cameras showed them to be a success. Government transport secretary Alistair Darling said the report was clear proof that safety cameras saved lives.

Mr Tea agreed, saying the Cumbria cameras had been working well by cutting deaths and serious injuries by almost 70 per cent.

The announcement by the Department for Transport also revealed that money raised by cameras would now go towards improved road safety measures rather than new cameras from 2007.

Although this would not drastically alter Cumbria's road safety measures, it would enable more schemes like improved road junctions and warning signs.

Cutting DEATHS by 70% or is that INCREASING deaths, and reducing seriously injured? So for 2004, 57 deaths is 70% of 53?
Or is 377 seriously injured 70% of 393?

My my - hasn't mathematics changed since I was at school!! :oops: :o

I have received an explanation from "the submarinated one" as Wildy puts it!! :)
I was seriously mistaken, and Kevin was quite correct.
The Cameras in Cumbria HAVE reduced KSI's by 72.3 %

My mistake was in using the statistics on the Cumbria Safelty Camera Partnership's website, from 2003 in which they started operations, to 2005.
In fact if you add the decline in KSI's from January 1999, to 2003, where KSI's fell all by themselves, to the small decline evidenced on the CSCP website, [at core sites] then the KSI's HAVE "reduced by nearly 70%".

In a giant twist of the statistics, they have now decided (in press releases anyway) to add previous declines to their own - which makes their case look stronger.

So the road safety case for Ings looks certain.
Use accidents NOT related to speed to place cameras there, and collect revenues in a needlessly reduced limit, and F*ck Bannerigg where accidents happen regularly, and somebody's son DIED this week, as it does not fit the criteria, and needs money spending on it!
No chance there then, unless they can raise revenue as a result! :x

On the crossing in Windermere, where a boy narrowly escped death last year, they WONT put a PELICAN crossing in, because it would cost £48000, but they will put a crossing warden there at school times (not sure WHEN yet). The rest of the time, the old people who use it can just risk their necks. :x
According to RoSPA, and reported by Steve on the now defunct CSCP Forum, "Government figures state the real cost of a fatal road accident to Society is in excess of £1 million" yet they are pissing about over £48000!! :x
I think I feel sick! :oops: To think the taxpayer is subsidising these incompetant bunch of cretins!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 23:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9259
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Quote:
A four-year report into the effectiveness of safety cameras showed them to be a success. Government transport secretary Alistair Darling said the report was clear proof that safety cameras saved lives.


Now - the same name crops up in thisreport where New labour co**ed up - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

n exerpt from the story -

"One Scottish MP nevertheless described colleagues in the Edinburgh Parliament as “stupid people who could not organise a piss-up in a distillery”.


what were they talking about - new labour - or the road safety policies??since the same people are seen in the london administration

Alistair Darling - Transport Secterary - shows up in Dunfermline and labour loses seat - " oh honestly guv - it's all about bridge tolls( motorist votes with feet) and hospitals - ( so does joe public) -

Like the song

"When will they ever learn"

Will it be when we as driers say " enough is enough"

Dunfermline said - stuff tony - next election - we should all say - no cams/no tolls/no road charges - --might get them thinking how to keep a job :roll:

( Not a political broadcast - just my pervesre way ofthinking - they need us more than we need them)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.226s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]