Pete317 wrote:
hjeg2 wrote:
1. Is that actually a fact though?
Fundamentally so. The greater the density and/or degree of hazards, the greater the inherent risk of accidents
But I think the point here is perhaps a slightly counter-intuitive one. If there is a greater perceived risk of accidents then people will drive slower and more carefully, so you end up either not getting the accidents or if they do occur they are less serious. But when people think that it is safe to drive fast then when accidents do occur they are much more serious.
Pete317 wrote:
Quote:
3. So when they do crash the results are worse.
That does not necessarily follow. More to the point though, you haven't shown that there are not far fewer accidents on such roads and, if so, how this could possibly be - seeing that the inherent risk is very much lower.
See above about the counter-intuitiveness.
Pete317 wrote:
Quote:
4. But then you are generally less likely to have those accidents if you are going slower, for example overturning your car.
Not necessarily.
But generally.
Pete317 wrote:
Quote:
I certainly haven't read it and I have no intention of doing so either. But appendix H is one part that I have had a look at.
Then you'll know that, with all the caveats given about paucity of suitable data, systemic problems, assumptions that have to be made, etc, that the results are inconclusive at best.
But this comes back to the question that I asked Odin: what would you actually accept as proof?
Pete317 wrote:
As an aside, did you read the bit (page 111) about figures from 600+ red light cameras being lumped together with those from fixed speed cameras?
Not yet.
Pete317 wrote:
Quote:
But we then get back to what I said to Odin: But what exactly would count as proof in your eyes?
What would count as proof that Santa Claus exists?
What would count as proof in your eyes that speed cameras don't live up to their promise?
A similarily detailed report as this one with negative figures.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
