Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Aug 15, 2020 06:26

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 21:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:30
Posts: 56
What fascinating ideas. :lol:

Going back to the original topic, of course what the "research" doesn't take into account would be any alteration in the volume of traffic. Which could make a big difference to any results.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 21:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
Flying Dodo wrote:
What fascinating ideas. :lol:

Going back to the original topic, of course what the "research" doesn't take into account would be any alteration in the volume of traffic. Which could make a big difference to any results.


That is the case with all of the data provided by the camera partnerships - which is what the bloke here used in his "research" (use of quotes to belittle I see) - it doesn't stop them drawing positive conclusion from it - why is it somehow different when someone draws negative conclusions?

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 22:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:30
Posts: 56
From the available information posted, it doesn't make any reference to traffic volumes, hence my issue about the validity of any research.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 22:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
Flying Dodo wrote:
From the available information posted, it doesn't make any reference to traffic volumes, hence my issue about the validity of any research.


It that case - you have a point. There is an argument (unproven) that cameras cause drivers to take other routes which both decreases traffic on the camera route and increases it elsewhere. The relationship between traffic volume and accidents is complex anyway...

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 23:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
prof beard wrote:
Flying Dodo wrote:
From the available information posted, it doesn't make any reference to traffic volumes, hence my issue about the validity of any research.


It that case - you have a point. There is an argument (unproven) that cameras cause drivers to take other routes which both decreases traffic on the camera route and increases it elsewhere. The relationship between traffic volume and accidents is complex anyway...


Speed cameras are often placed on wide, straight roads were people can be tempted to do a little more than the posted limit. Especially if there's a hill which might help to speed things up.

So car drivers are then tempted to make their journeys on other, perhaps less suitable and potentially less safe routes, perhaps?

So the "Safety" Partnerships might be displacing volumes of traffic and thus decreasing the safety of road users and others? :roll:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 23:24 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9273
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Thatsnews wrote:

So car drivers are then tempted to make their journeys on other, perhaps less suitable and potentially less safe routes, perhaps?



Human nature, especially as you can enjoy the drive without worry about blipping.


Thatsnews wrote:
So the "Safety" Partnerships might be displacing volumes of traffic and thus decreasing the safety of road users and others? :roll:


But by reducing the volume, they might reduce the number of hits and so be able to claim that they have (by inference of reduced infringements) reduced speeding (and by their twisted logic improved safety )
:twisted:

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 00:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
botach wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:

So car drivers are then tempted to make their journeys on other, perhaps less suitable and potentially less safe routes, perhaps?



Human nature, especially as you can enjoy the drive without worry about blipping.


Thatsnews wrote:
So the "Safety" Partnerships might be displacing volumes of traffic and thus decreasing the safety of road users and others? :roll:


But by reducing the volume, they might reduce the number of hits and so be able to claim that they have (by inference of reduced infringements) reduced speeding (and by their twisted logic improved safety )
:twisted:


And, at the same time, actually REDUCED road safety in the surrounding area!!!

My God! :o THEN they can claim: "But there are STILL lots of accidents! How can we fix this?? Why, with more speed cameras, of course!" :shock: :o

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:04 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9273
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Thatsnews wrote:
And, at the same time, actually REDUCED road safety in the surrounding area!!!
Quote:

Shush - you heretic -don't you know cameras only improve road safety ( or so the SCP say ):shock:


Thatsnews wrote:
My God! :o THEN they can claim: "But there are STILL lots of accidents! How can we fix this?? Why, with more speed cameras, of course!" :shock: :o


Page1, chapter 1 of the SCP training manual ,under the subheading -never let a golden opportunity go by :roll:

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 02:29 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
botach wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
And, at the same time, actually REDUCED road safety in the surrounding area!!!
Quote:

Shush - you heretic -don't you know cameras only improve road safety ( or so the SCP say ):shock:


Thatsnews wrote:
My God! :o THEN they can claim: "But there are STILL lots of accidents! How can we fix this?? Why, with more speed cameras, of course!" :shock: :o


Page1, chapter 1 of the SCP training manual ,under the subheading -never let a golden opportunity go by :roll:


:thumbsup: :clap1:

I think I get the hang of this SCP training manual, now!

The first two chapters:-

Chapter 1: Common-sense and how to lose it

Chapter 2: You conscience and how to ignore it :lol:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.596s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]