The editing and direction on the program was hugely biased, in my view.
An example of a cherry-picked, heartfelt moment: Child “There are innocent people out there!”
Liz McKee had obviously made up her mind too: “poor old drivers”.
I’m hoping the viewer will see through that and hopefully take it into account.
Let’s get to the meat of the debate
So how do speed cameras stop the “
real enemy: dangerous drivers”? I thought only trafpol could do that! How do cameras stop the nutters, joyriders, unregistered (untraceable), etc?
Did Clare Brixey really say:
Clare Brixey wrote:
“The only way we can reduce fatalities is to reduce speed”
...and
Clare Brixey wrote:
cameras are there to reduce speed
I thought they were there to document evidence of those transgressing the limits. So do they reduce speed of those within the limit?
There are
other issues with Clare Brixey's case. I think she has become misguided as a result of intervention of the
anti-motoring organisation Brake.
________________________________________________________________________________
Mick Giannasi wrote:
"Significant casualty reductions as a result of cameras"
So nothing to do with policing, or ongoing road engineering, or information/education campaigns, or improved post crash/care, or advances of car design....
Mick Giannasi seems to be concerned about the "administrative process" supporting the cameras being "at risk"
Then again, we know he has
some form. Why does this policeman like cameras to replace police?
Isn't this the guy who wants enforcement by speed cameras
"outsourced"? ________________________________________________________________________________
The accident footage:
Was the
fundamental danger that the driver looked away, the pedestrian stepped out into a driver’s blind spot (behind the moving van) or the speed of the driver? Don't forget, we do have 40mph limits too!
________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:
"Cut accidents by 20%"
Is that the
Monbiot fallacy?
Talking of whom....
George Monbiot wrote:
All possible statistical anomalies have been removed
Except your understanding of them
And what about 'Bias On Selection' (BOS) George? (the addition of separate independent safety measures installed at camera sites that genuinely reduces danger at those sites, but the “camera site” gets the full credit for any KSI reduction).
Oh yes, there has been no study showing that speed cameras give any benefit at all (let alone in comparison to the trafpol they displace) when accounting for
Regression To the Mean (RTTM) and BOS.
________________________________________________________________________________
The mother Caroline Hannah’s (of tragic child Tyrese) didn't quite understand what the council was doing for her.
Caroline Hannah wrote:
If there were speed cameras on Drove Road my son might still be alive.
...
Most people do [think twice]
Is "might" good enough?
Do "most" drivers kill other road users?
Council engineer Richard freeman wrote:
This measure will prevent drivers from actually causing the accident that prompted this particular scheme
"
Certainly better" indeed, but for some strange reason she still prefers the budget spent on cameras?!?
Do I smell
Brake again?
Caroline Hannah wrote:
Instead he was killed by a selfish driver who knew he wouldn't get caught for speeding."
You make it sound like there are no trafpol around to deal with dangerous driving (in whatever form) – perhaps cameras displaced them?
________________________________________________________________________________
Julie Townsend Brake wrote:
The majority of drivers accept speed cameras
The AA survey she refers to was loaded;
it included a sneaky clause: "
70% of motorists supported their use, so long as it was seen as improving road safety, and not designed simply to raise money."
Here's the problem with that AA survey:
"
Two thirds (66%) believe speed cameras are mainly used as a revenue generating opportunity" [Swift Cover]
And to corroborate: "
Only 27% think speed cameras improve road safety" {Admiral/Youguv]
But let's not let common sense get in the way of Brake's emotive manipulation.
Shoppers and drivers analogy: I believe we have our
burglary connection.
But she is right, it doesn’t make sense!
There is
intent with shoplifting, there is an actual victim with shoplifting, everyone accepts the legislation against shoplifting.
Conversely in many cases of driving, there is no intent to cause harm, or even exceed the limit, there is rarely an actual victim (and where there are is usually because of other factors), and most drivers claim at least some limits are needlessly low [
71% think the speed limit should be 80mph or higher on motorways] -
the law is an ass.
This is why the majority of road users indeed feel that it is "socially acceptable to speed"________________________________________________________________________________
George Monbiot wrote:
Punished for breaking the law, who would have thought it
...
but not when it comes to speeding
He is trying to misrepresent this campaign. Safe Speed call for speed limits and enforcement of then where exceeding them causes danger.
Safe Speed call for roads to be enforced intelligently and effectively by trafpol, instead of mindlessly and poorly by cameras.
Some of the problems surrounding the current policy is the mismanagement of limits (needlessly low), disproportionate penalty (loss of 1/4 of licence for 3 years for doing 80 on a clear motorway), and the fact that cameras don't detect actual dangerous/reckless/careless/anti-social driving.
George Monbiot wrote:
Responsible for so many deaths
About the same pedestrians not looking when they step into the road [table 4i RCGB2007]. Was that (
among many other things) in your "blind spot" too?
But it's not even that. 'Exceeding the speed limit' is a contributory factor, not a root cause ("responsible"), and is one of an average of 2.5 factors per casualty (recall Clare Brixey's
drugged and 2x drink limit driver).
Laura Kuenfsburg wrote:
Where has that myth about camera making money come from
It is not a myth. I have always been of the opinion that cameras do make money, but not for the government.
It's those cheating PR/analysis staff at the SCPs, the ones who claim
their tools, tool which conveniently pays their income, who benefit. Those folks have such a strong conflict of (self) interest, is it any wonder they wantonly continue to perpetrate the fallacy of RTTM? There are plenty of linked examples of their misrepresentation shown throughout these forums. Even you've wantonly made that 'mistake' [
Sending Off The Ref (2010)]
George Monbiot wrote:
for every extra death and for every extras person injured, we should send a letter of congratulations to Safe Speed
In that case, according to the valid "fatality Gap" argument(
1,
2), we should have sent the SCPs about 100,000 letters by now.
Remember, Safe Speed
has not "
been promoting" the "
crazy and regressive policies" of
reduction of the road safety budget, indeed we all dislike that reduction. Surely what everyone wants is for the budget spent on known good measures that have been shown to give far greater benefit, like road engineering, traffic policing, etc.
If the budget was to remain the same, and the budget on cameras were diverted to those other means, would you still be inclined to send your letters?
George Monbiot wrote:
We want to replace that piece of metal, by taking policemen away from serious crime
I thought that's what you wanted George, unless you don't believe 'speeding' is a serious crime?
No, we want to see more police as we had in the past, achieved (partly) by directing the existing camera budget towards trafpol, not through displacement of them from other areas. Again you misrepresent George!
You believe that it is a "mindless task" to detect and halt dangerous drivers?
I think you should talk to some actual police George!
But wait - don't camera operators have an even more mindless job? What about that operator who pinged Montgomery?
"Sometimes your mind just goes numb"For reasons I still can't fathom, given the choice between:
- the 'mechanised process' of automated documenting of evidence, for only one specific offence, irrespective of the safety or danger posed, that doesn't stop or prevent that one specific offence, or even deter any other offence, and letting those with criminal intent evade justice
- a mobile force that immediately detects and halts any offence (be it technical, anti-social or dangerous), considering the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, prevents evasion of justice (giving chase if necessary), of any road user, and can still deal with non-motoring offencesour George seems to prefer the former method; I can only conclude he is as 'mindless' as the cameras he so prefers!
George Monbiot,
your misrepresentation knows no bounds. I am willing to prove my point directly to you; so I personally challenge you to a direct rebuttle on all the points I have raised.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
and for the PM's too. Much appreciated. 
