Safe Speed Forums

I was really hoping that you discuss the issue odin, but coming up with "CannotReadorWrite" you have proven when you are facing reality you are too weak too.

And I must be able to read and write as you replied with complete crap odin.

So once again are you going to debate the issue and going to ask sensible questions and write comments that makes sense or by writing such crap as "CannotReadorWrite" you have proven just here to throw meaningless nonsense into the mix, because you are scare of facing the truth?

PS No I am still here to laugh at your expense odin, where you claiming I am doing the same thing everyone can see you are doing, which is writing nonsense.

Tol if you weren't too busy asking for something that I have already done, you would noticed I have in fact told people where to go regarding Speed Cameras saving lives such as Monash Uni, where there are least 10 pages on speed cameras.

http://tinyurl.com/2jaas6

But so far you haven't provided any evidence what so ever as all you can come up with is comments like "The evidence and data on which the conclusions stated by Safespeed are based are from government funded sources"

So can produce information not your own opinion, that proves removing speed cameras lives well be saved and this information should come from data collected for UK roads and not connected to you or Safe Speed.

But hold on speed cameras are the same all around the world aren't they, catching speed drivers?

So why do you only want UK Data, scare of the truth of what Monash Data would prove to you?

That Safe Speed claims are very very wrong and that Speed Cameras do in fact save lives.

Thanks for the advice Sixty, but I would prefer to go with tol one handly advice of the link he suggested.

But hopefully by doing this thatsnew well visited the Monash site below of the shorten link (Thanks Tol ) , and then he would realise that there are more then one link?

http://tinyurl.com/2jaas6

There's a lot of interesting reading on those links.

The interim conclusions I have drawn are that

1) The only stated statistically significant effect is "during alcohol hours"

2) I could see no data for controls or what the casualty reduction trends had been in the run-up to camera enforcement

3) No account has been taken of the vehicle improvements and any other factors.

4) There is no indication of traffic density (or put another way, accident rate per distance travelled)

5) - and this is the biggie - whilst there is stated correlation between speed camera introduction and accident reduction, there is no evidence whatsoever of a link.

I will read up more, but the assumption of a link - fraught with danger - is present to a greater or lesser degree in the half a dozen of the reports identified by CRW that I have looked through.

So what you are claiming Roger is like thatsnew you read only part of the picture and jump up and down saying this what happens with the bigger picture?

And yes there is only link, but did your interim conclusions considered from this one link, there are 10 pages that you should read up more?

But then again would you considered the assumption of a link put up by Safe Speed - be fraught with danger especially they claim something that they don't have evidence to prove their claim that speed cameras don't save lives?

Which is like what happened on 9/11, some claim it was an inside job and yet we are still waiting years later for evidence, that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

So you admit that you have nothing of value to add, and that you aren't going to offer any valid answers to questions?

If you have read the Monash report yourself, can you list your interpretation of the finding from that report?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Uh?
I'm glad you don't work for the CIA

Further proof, if it were needed, that your powers of logic and reasoning are, er.. questionable...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

crw will not list his intepretations because the more reports you read the more they back up what safespeed has been saying. There are some 270 odd reports avaiable. Not all are speed enforcement studies. There are many that are crash studies, driver standard studies, cyclist studies and road safety treatment studies etc. There are also many that are not road safety at all.

In one report from 1990 they make a point about rttm and how it must be accounted for in any conclusions (something that has been ignored by many camera proponents). Has crw only read the speed camera studies?

By the looks of it until someone comes on here and says they have read all of the studies crw will not be satisfied. Even then he will not believe your conclusions.

CRW, just because I only provided one link to the Monash University site does not mean I did not read more than one report. You made an invalid assumption there!

I agree with others who point out that the situation with the Monash University work is more complex that it would seem to be on the face of it.

Like me, you seem to have a problem with spelling! My spelling (as far as this board is concerned!) is now much better because I have downloaded Firefox and you can download very good spellcheckers for a variety of languages.

You might be interested in this one https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... +zm+tb.xpi

It is the Australian English spellchecker. I use the British English one.

Obviously, you need to download Firefox in order to use the spellchecker.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

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

A spell checker would not help for most of CRW's posts, since he is actually for the most part speeling the words correctly, its just that the sentences make no sense whatsoever.

This one for example:


All the words are spelt correctly, thus a spell checker wouldn't help. The best I can do with this one to translate it into English is as follows:

[crw translation]
Then again, would you consider the assumption of a link put up by Safe Speed to be fraught with danger? Especially since they claim that speed cameras don't save lives, whilst providing no evidence to back this up.
[/crw translation]

I know, Odin, I know. But I thought it might help. Just a bit.

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

Guys

I appreciate that crw's posts are not the easiest to read and I have to admit that I do find them quite confusing on occasion (ok on a lot of occasions) but can we please try to address the contents of the posts where possible, we are starting to attack the messenger when we should be discussing the message.

I believe that crw's position is as such:-

a) Speed cameras provide a positive contribution to road safety.

b) Research from Monash University provides proof of a.

c) It is down to the Safespeed campaign to prove that Speed cameras are dangerous and that their removal would reduce KSI's.

crw, can I ask if that sums up your position sufficiently? If so can we address each of those points individually? Is there anything you would like to add or remove?

Thanks

Paul

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

To tell you the truth I do not have the time to read through reports coming to several thousands of pages on the chance that somewhere is the data I have asked for. The evidence I asked for, if you remember, is any proof that removing a camera leads to an increase in accidents, I am happy to read any such reports if you can provide specific links to them.




Unfortunately what you are asking for is a logical impossibility, by providing any such evidence myself it automatically becomes invalid, by your rules, as I provided it. On a more prosaic note, in case you had not noticed I am a private individual and do not personally have the resources to collect any such evidence. Fortunately I do not have to produce the evidence or be involved in its production as the UK government has seen fit to take care of that. Your rules make it impossible for me to provide you with links to this information however if you enter "road accident statistics uk" into google you will find pages of sites containing data.



Similar certainly, however what you are failing to appreciate is that it is the policies behind the use of the cameras which are the real problem and policies are local hence the relevance of the UK restriction. I have not placed any such restriction on my request for proof that removing cameras increases accidents though, please feel free to reference Monash data. I am glad that you acknowledge speed cameras catch only speeding drivers not unsafe drivers, though only the drivers of legally registered vehicles can be caught by a camera of course.

It could be I am misinterpreting what you write sometimes which is leading to a confrontational exchange. As Gopher has asked please help us to understand your position.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May