Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Aug 01, 2021 07:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: NewsNight
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 20:27 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
NewsNight BBC2 2230. Against Monbiot.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 20:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Is Newsnight not 2230 on BBC2?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 20:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... efault.stm

presenter / interviewer : Laura Kuenfsburg

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 20:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
RobinXe wrote:
Is Newsnight not 2230 on BBC2?

Yes. The first post is amended.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 23:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Well, Moonboot proved he is better at shouting over any opposition, not much else! Was interesting to see that he thinks the police should be focussing on more important tasks than saving people's lives! Shame it got focussed on the stats, the point I had hoped would come out above all is that cameras do not stop even speeding drivers, merely fines them later, would the lady whose son was tragically killed have felt better about the whole thing if the driver had got an extra 3 points and £60 fine on top of anything else?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 23:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Monbiot f***ed up big time. He quoted from table H8, not H7 ha haaaaa :D :D :D :D :D He literally didn't know what he was talking about!

More will follow later (I'm on a night out)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 00:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
The floor manager had a few questions about abroad road conditions to which Monbiot failed to answer at all. I re- reminded him to that he had his figures muddled.

I tried to get in what I could - I felt that I fumbled the beginning as the TV list looked like they were going to Monbiot first ! Ooops - I recovered and tried to get across some important points without avoiding their questions all together !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 00:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 16:54
Posts: 15
Location: mostly europe
Good work Claire, good work!!

Mo.

_________________
Paul, thank you so much for all that you have achieved, we owe you a debt that cannot be paid.
RIP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 00:35 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9274
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
From PH --


a POSTER said:
Clare Armstrong did a good job there I thought, quiet,dignified and stuck to her guns especially at the end getting the point over about cameras being ineffective against drunk drivers. Monbigot came over (accurately)as a bit of a tit, much more and he'd have been frothing at the mouth

EdiTED BY POSTER on Friday 20th August 23:03
Agreed,
Anyone watching that would have to be impressed with Clare and her restraint with his repeated quoting of dodgy statistics, he was quite offensive in his delivery whereas she, wisely IMHO, gave him plenty of rope.

so STAND UP AND TAKE A BOW ,Claire

_________________
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: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 00:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 17:20
Posts: 258
as old arry used to say "he was on the ropes" typical beeb cutting the interview short before the knockout blow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 01:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
Well thank you all :) and for the PM's too. Much appreciated. :)

As I often said to Paul the truth will out.
It is sad that there is so much rubbish handed out to the public, but perhaps the message is beginning to get through !
I fumbled at the start but I think I recovered OK ... there is just never enough time to say everything, it is such a big and involved topic.

It may well lead to more interviews and so on ...

Monboit did have a few kind words to say about how he had enjoyed sparring with Paul, and that he was sorry to hear that he had died.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 02:36 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Steve wrote:
Monbiot f***ed up big time. He quoted from table H8, not H7 ha haaaaa :D :D :D :D :D He literally didn't know what he was talking about!

More will follow later (I'm on a night out)

Here :D

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 09:59 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 09:49
Posts: 1
Regarding last evening's tv debate:

The Safe speed speaker could have emphasised the following:

"Speed Kills" is not the whole truth, when there is an accident the greater the speed the greater the injury and damage. Clearly, the way to reduce road deaths and injuries is to reduce accidents. How? Better driver education. Better roadside furniture. Better road design. Serious penalties for infringers. Speed cameras only reduce speed and some injuries in their immediate vicinity. It is a waste of time arguing statistics with a person who is ideologically set in their thinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NewsNight
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 14:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Monbiot did have a few kind words to say about how he had enjoyed sparring with Paul, and that he was sorry to hear that he had died.

I didn't see this, as I was out, but it sounds good from the comments.

I'm sure Paul would have been very proud of you - he never achieved a face-to-face TV debate with Monbiot :clap:

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 18:17 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
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”

:o :o :o :o :o

...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.... :roll:

Mick Giannasi seems to be concerned about the "administrative process" supporting the cameras being "at risk" :scratchchin:
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"? :scratchchin:


________________________________________________________________________________

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 :lol:
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. :roll:

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? :loco: 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 offences


our 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.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.057s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]