So, speed cameras undoubtedly save lives and reduce accidents.

"Speed cameras have saved far fewer lives than the Government claims,
a study shows.

Instead of saving 100 lives a year, the true figure could be less than
50, they say.

'Speed cameras do reduce accidents but not quite as much as has
sometimes been claimed,' said Dr Linda Mountain of Liverpool
University's engineering department.

Official figures compiled by the National Safety Camera Programme
compare accident rates before and after a speed camera goes up..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053865/Speed-cameras-saved-HALF-lives-ministers...

On 10 Sep, 07:01, Doug riseup.net> wrote:

May I infer from your lack of response on the thread "The moment a
pensioner smashed his car through a supermarket" that you now admit
you were talking out of your anus on the subject of manslaughter,
Gollum?

Doug riseup.net> wrote:

It's difficult to know where to start with this. Firstly it's obvious
that you didn't bother to read the article, just the headline and then
you snatched the first paragraphs.

What the article does is to completely vindicate the work done by the
late Paul Smith of Safespeed, he was right, regression to the mean is a
significant factor and knee-jerk installation of cameras at "black
spots" does turn out to be a naive policy instututed by mathematical
illiterates.

The article takes no account of the BMJ article:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7558/73

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:11:07 +0100, %%steve%%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Derek miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Jings crivens.

A similar incident close to where I live saw a similar knee-jerk
response by councillors. The bald facts were that a car driver, who was
driving at 85mph in a 50mph limit crossed onto the other side of the
road killing seven people. Local councillors ranted about the speeding
and the inevitable loss of life and demanded speed cameras and "traffic
calming" by which they meant chicanes, on a major 'A' road.

During all the hysteria the hysterical forgot to take account of the
fact that drink and drugs seemed to be the real cause of the accident.

"Steve Firth" <%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1in2bwl.1e8kfpg1jrfiq4N%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...

%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

But he was speeding. 85mph is more than 50mph.

Adrian gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:36:39 +0100, %%steve%%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

During the campaigning phase for a speed camera well before the actual
speed cameras arrived I attended a Neighbourhood Watch meeting when
the N.W. rep from the local police station said that whenever they'd
put a speed camera on the hill, all the speeders detected were locals.
So if they didn't want cars speeding down the hill the solution was in
their hands (or at their feet).

The only 2 that I've known to get speeding tickets were our office
secretary (39 in a 30 limit, late for work) and the accountant (35 in
a 30 limit). Both live within 100 metres of the road.

The fallacy appears to lie in the common belief that "It's the cars
coming here from somewhere else that are doing the speeding".

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 23:01:16 -0700 (PDT), Doug put finger to keyboard
and typed:

I don't think any sensible person would argue that speed cameras
*never* work. Used appropriately, they are a useful tool in the box,
along with a variety of other possible options that can be used to
improve safety on the roads.

The anti-camera campaigners aren't arguing against a limited,
appropriate use of cameras, they are arguing against an inappropriate
and indiscriminate use driven by a knee-jerk attitude to speed and a
misunderstanding (or even misrepresentation) of statistics. And this
argument appears to be born out by the report in question.

Mark