Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Nuxx Bar
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> > But you know speed cameras cost lives.
>
> What are you smoking?
It's my opinion, backed up by plenty of evidence. It may be
counterintuitive, and it may not be something that car-haters or
control freaks want to accept, but that doesn't make it any less
true. Yet plenty of people wish to gag the likes of me from
expressing opinions like that, mainly because they don't want what I'm
saying to be true, but nor can they refute it. Are you one of them?
> > You just pretend to think they
> > save lives because you hate motorists (your posts are littered with
> > the evidence). That's really callous, and disrespectful towards those
> > who've lost their lives in road accidents, don't you think?
>
> killed by people speeding, you mean?
Sigh. Come back when you've actually looked at the figures with an
open mind. How many accidents have you heard of which were caused by
someone going over the speed limit when their driving was OK in every
other way? Speed cameras focus purely on a behaviour which costs
*very* few lives, and the myriad side effects of cameras (some more
subtle than others) cost more lives than they could ever possibly
save, hence cameras have a net cost in terms of lives. I didn't
believe it either when I first heard it, but I haven't been in any
doubt for years.
If I felt for a moment that it was a worthwhile use of my time, I
would continue to explain to you what was what, but sadly I think it
likely that I'm talking to a brick wall. Anyone who's still on
"WHAT? You're *criticising speed cameras*?!" by now doesn't exactly
fill me with optimism about their grip on how road safety and good
driving really works.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[snippety]
I don't think the group is likely to want to go round that loop again,
so you could email me if you want my side.
--
Guy
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>> How many accidents have you heard of which were caused by
>> someone going over the speed limit when their driving was OK in every
>> other way? Speed cameras focus purely on a behaviour which costs
>> *very* few lives, and the myriad side effects of cameras (some more
>> subtle than others) cost more lives than they could ever possibly
>> save, hence cameras have a net cost in terms of lives.
>
>How do speed cameras cost lives? If these effects are so
>subtle, maybe you can understand why other people find
>it hard to believe.
I don't find it hard to believe. There is a stretch of dual
carriageway that runs parallel to the M6 between J14 and J15 which has
speed cameras and a continuously changing speed limit. It's become a
very difficult bit of road to drive on. A single speed limit on the
whole stretch would be better.
There is a main road with a 20 mph speed limit (and speed bumps)near
my mother's house, just because it passes a school. When the road
enters a VERY quiet built up area it changes to a 30.
One sensible bit of speed restriction I've seen recently is on a very
wide road near a school when the limit is reduced from 40 to 30 when
the kids are about. While one feels deeply sorry for anyone who has
lost someone in a road accident, common sense in speed restriction
often in short supply IME.
--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
jms
wrote:
All of it snipped
I would recommend no-one to respond to Ron - he is one of the regulars
(and of course I have my suspicions) who chooses to be anonymous
Headers:
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address
above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please
report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at
<ab...@frell.theremailer.net>.
Identifying the real sender is technically impossible.
jms
Good one.
You do make me laugh.