Let's Hear It Then

It's time for the likes of SPINdrift to stop going on about irrelevant
issues like ancient, peripheral web pages, individual forum posts from
years ago, and the other copy and paste diversions of which he is so
fond. It's time for those who are against Safe Speed to counter (or
attempt to counter) the important stuff. We'll start off with this
statement that Paul Smith made on http://www.driversvoice.co.uk last
year. Instead of cherry-picking one or two lines, I would like Safe
Speed's detractors to comment on every claim against cameras that Paul
has made, and if they think that what he has said is correct, I want
them to admit it, rather than just grudgingly saying nothing and
moving on, which has been the the usual tactic on the many occasions
when Paul has talked complete sense.

Generally in the camera debate, if someone talks sense, it should be
acknowledged, no matter who has said it. Road safety is far too
important for this juvenile "I'm only going to admit that something's
true if the right person has said it" nonsense. We're all supposed to
be on the same side (at least those of us who actually have an agenda
to save lives, rather than a hidden wish to bully motorists off the
roads).

I've added some comments of my own in square brackets in an attempt to
pre-empt some of the more boring and predictable responses, so that
hopefully we can have a somewhat interesting discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------

I Am Angry (Written By Paul Smith)

Paul Smith is the founder of safespeed.org.uk, and an anti speed
camera campaigner. He has spent over 6,000 hours researching the
overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety.

I'm not an angry man by nature. I'm a back room engineer. All my life
I've been plodding away a million miles from the public gaze making
systems work by designing them properly.

But how things have changed in the last few years. Now I'm a front
line road safety campaigner, and no one is more surprised than me. And
I am angry. I'm angry that the authorities are continuously misusing
evidence and statistics to convince us that their prejudices are
correct. I'm angry that our roads aren't getting safer. I'm angry that
millions of safe drivers are being criminalised for nothing.

["It's not for nothing, it's for exceeding the speed limit." Yawn.
Every driver speeds, even the ones who lie about it. Selecting a safe
speed for the conditions, which may or may not be above an arbitrary
number, is an essential part of driving, and expecting people to stay
below what is frequently a very low number (especially nowadays) does
nothing but de-skilling the driving process for no benefit
whatsoever. It is perfectly possible to exceed the speed limit in
complete safety, and criminalising so many drivers for doing this is
indeed criminalising them for nothing, in that they're quite obviously
doing nothing dangerous. There may be those (motorist-haters) who
don't have a problem with criminalising drivers for nothing; as far as
they're concerned, people deserve punishment just for driving at all.
Well, they should really stop hijacking something as important as road
safety in order to enforce their spiteful aims.]

There is nothing in the case for speed cameras that stands scrutiny.
Every claim they have ever made is misleading, inaccurate, incompetent
or just plain false. Now we have a speed camera industry handing out
over 2 million tickets each year and the road aren't getting safer.
[If you disagree, please cite one or more claims made in favour of
cameras which you *honestly* believe are in no way misleading,
inaccurate, incompetent or false.]

Let's look at some of those false claims...

They say crashes are down – usually by about 40% – at speed camera
sites. This sounds impressive but it's a fraud. It neglects a
particular statistical bias that arises when cameras are placed where
there have been unusually high numbers of crashes. Some of those sites
are nothing more than random clusters of crashes, and we wouldn't
expect the random clusters to continue or recur anyway. They would
have improved whether we'd put a camera there or not. With the rules
that have been used to place speed cameras this effect is huge. We
estimate that it gives rise to a 50% reduction at speed camera sites
on average – and you get that effect without installing the camera. So
when they install a camera and say crashes are down by 40% they may
well be admitting to making matters worse. Neglecting this bias is a
fraud because it is well known and understood. [Even Chapman has
grudgingly admitted this. So my question to camera advocates is this:
Why do SCPs, ministers and other camera apologists still commit this
fraud so often, when they know exactly what they're doing, and why do
you accept it and other frauds like it?]

They have been saying for years that one third of crashes are caused
by speeding. But last year the truth finally came out – Department for
Transport data confirms that only one crash in twenty (5%) involves
any vehicle exceeding the speed limit. And notice that they can no
longer claim that ‘speeding' is the cause of the crash. Instead it's a
possible contributory factor. Department for Transport also says that
more than 50% of us are speeding under free flowing conditions on most
road types. You could say that ‘speeding was under-represented' in the
crash statistics. On the face of it we're more likely to be involved
in a crash when we're not speeding than when we are speeding. That's
true – and there's a simple reason. We adjust our speed to suit the
hazards and risks – slowest in supermarket car parks, fastest on
motorways. We're most likely to be speeding where there are fewest
hazards and places with fewer hazards have fewer crashes.

[This is one way in which the camera advocates here show that they
have a fundamental problem with motorists: they simply cannot bring
themselves to accept that motorists can be trusted to do anything,
including adjusting their speed to suit the hazards and risks. They
much prefer to think of motorists as inherently bad and irresponsible
people, who need to be controlled. They have to be negative about
driving, prescribing simple and draconian rules and punishments,
rather than being positive about it and considering it as a skill.]

They are running that advertisement on TV with the child pedestrian.
The claim is that 20% die in 30mph impacts but 80% die in 40mph
impacts. That much is true. But it's not happening in the real world.
Around 11,000 child pedestrians are injured in built up areas (30 AND
40mph speed limits) each year. If we were hitting them at 30mph we'd
have well over 2,000 deaths. But we don't. For the last year of
complete figures (2005) we had 47. That's under half of one percent.
Clearly we're not running into them at anywhere near 30mph on average.
The behaviour that saves has nothing to do with the speed limit. It
has to do with drivers responding to hazards. Beyond even this, there
are probably around 250,000 incidents each year involving child
pedestrians in built up areas, with the vast majority ending in some
braking and a brief scare. If the TV advert painted a true picture AND
we simply ‘stuck to the speed limit', we'd have 50,000 child
pedestrians killed each year. Thankfully road safety doesn't work that
way. It works when people manage risk. [Another fraud which is
regularly committed by camera apologists. Again, why? If cameras
work so well, why are we constantly being lied to and misled?]

It wouldn't matter that the claims were deceitful if, by some stroke
of luck, the speed camera system worked to make our roads safer. But
it doesn't. Our long term reliable year on year reduction in risk has
gone. We've lost our crown as having the safest roads in the world.
We're now ‘bottom of the league'; 17th fastest improving out of 20
European countries.

We have a road safety disaster – and speed cameras are at the root of
it. If earlier trends had continued, road deaths would be falling by
at least 4% per annum and we'd have under 2,000 road deaths each year.
But we have well over 3,000 still. We're over 1,000 lives each year
behind expectation, and it's that, more than anything else that makes
me angry. The authorities are sitting on their hands pretending that
their policies are working. But their policies have failed.

[None of this "vehicle safety improvements have plateaued" rubbish,
and similar stabs in the dark, stacks up. There was clearly a major
change at the same time that cameras were introduced, and other than
cameras themselves, there was no other policy change then that could
reasonably be held responsible. Only someone who already had a pro-
camera agenda would contend that cameras weren't responsible when
nothing else fits. To any reasonable, open-minded person, cameras are
by far the most sensible explanation for the fatality gap.]

They can't face up to the simple fact that road safety works because,
and only because, individuals manage risk in real time. The false
messages surrounding speed cameras are actually making us into a
nation or poorer risk managers. We're all focused on the wrong safety
factor. We're not developing our skills. Department for Transport
doesn't even have a working definition of what it means to be a good
driver.

And it's all gone wrong because of speed cameras. Over 28,000 signed
our recent 10 Downing Street petition to get them scrapped. We won't
get road safety back on track until they have all been scrapped. And
I'll be angry until every last one has gone.

This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

LOL.



"Nuxx Bar" skrev i en meddelelse
...
It's time for the likes of SPINdrift to stop going on about irrelevant
issues like ancient, peripheral web pages, individual forum posts from
years ago, and the other copy and paste diversions of which he is so
fond. It's time for those who are against Safe Speed to counter (or
attempt to counter) the important stuff. We'll start off with this
statement that Paul Smith made on http://www.driversvoice.co.uk last
year. Instead of cherry-picking one or two lines, I would like Safe
Speed's detractors to comment on every claim against cameras that Paul
has made, and if they think that what he has said is correct, I want
them to admit it, rather than just grudgingly saying nothing and
moving on, which has been the the usual tactic on the many occasions
when Paul has talked complete sense.

Generally in the camera debate, if someone talks sense, it should be
acknowledged, no matter who has said it. Road safety is far too
important for this juvenile "I'm only going to admit that something's
true if the right person has said it" nonsense. We're all supposed to
be on the same side (at least those of us who actually have an agenda
to save lives, rather than a hidden wish to bully motorists off the
roads).

I've added some comments of my own in square brackets in an attempt to
pre-empt some of the more boring and predictable responses, so that
hopefully we can have a somewhat interesting discussion.

-----------------------------------------------------

I Am Angry (Written By Paul Smith)

Paul Smith is the founder of safespeed.org.uk, and an anti speed
camera campaigner. He has spent over 6,000 hours researching the
overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety.

I'm not an angry man by nature. I'm a back room engineer. All my life
I've been plodding away a million miles from the public gaze making
systems work by designing them properly.

But how things have changed in the last few years. Now I'm a front
line road safety campaigner, and no one is more surprised than me. And
I am angry. I'm angry that the authorities are continuously misusing
evidence and statistics to convince us that their prejudices are
correct. I'm angry that our roads aren't getting safer. I'm angry that
millions of safe drivers are being criminalised for nothing.

["It's not for nothing, it's for exceeding the speed limit." Yawn.
Every driver speeds, even the ones who lie about it. Selecting a safe
speed for the conditions, which may or may not be above an arbitrary
number, is an essential part of driving, and expecting people to stay
below what is frequently a very low number (especially nowadays) does
nothing but de-skilling the driving process for no benefit
whatsoever. It is perfectly possible to exceed the speed limit in
complete safety, and criminalising so many drivers for doing this is
indeed criminalising them for nothing, in that they're quite obviously
doing nothing dangerous. There may be those (motorist-haters) who
don't have a problem with criminalising drivers for nothing; as far as
they're concerned, people deserve punishment just for driving at all.
Well, they should really stop hijacking something as important as road
safety in order to enforce their spiteful aims.]

There is nothing in the case for speed cameras that stands scrutiny.
Every claim they have ever made is misleading, inaccurate, incompetent
or just plain false. Now we have a speed camera industry handing out
over 2 million tickets each year and the road aren't getting safer.
[If you disagree, please cite one or more claims made in favour of
cameras which you *honestly* believe are in no way misleading,
inaccurate, incompetent or false.]

Let's look at some of those false claims...

They say crashes are down – usually by about 40% – at speed camera
sites. This sounds impressive but it's a fraud. It neglects a
particular statistical bias that arises when cameras are placed where
there have been unusually high numbers of crashes. Some of those sites
are nothing more than random clusters of crashes, and we wouldn't
expect the random clusters to continue or recur anyway. They would
have improved whether we'd put a camera there or not. With the rules
that have been used to place speed cameras this effect is huge. We
estimate that it gives rise to a 50% reduction at speed camera sites
on average – and you get that effect without installing the camera. So
when they install a camera and say crashes are down by 40% they may
well be admitting to making matters worse. Neglecting this bias is a
fraud because it is well known and understood. [Even Chapman has
grudgingly admitted this. So my question to camera advocates is this:
Why do SCPs, ministers and other camera apologists still commit this
fraud so often, when they know exactly what they're doing, and why do
you accept it and other frauds like it?]

They have been saying for years that one third of crashes are caused
by speeding. But last year the truth finally came out – Department for
Transport data confirms that only one crash in twenty (5%) involves
any vehicle exceeding the speed limit. And notice that they can no
longer claim that ‘speeding' is the cause of the crash. Instead it's a
possible contributory factor. Department for Transport also says that
more than 50% of us are speeding under free flowing conditions on most
road types. You could say that ‘speeding was under-represented' in the
crash statistics. On the face of it we're more likely to be involved
in a crash when we're not speeding than when we are speeding. That's
true – and there's a simple reason. We adjust our speed to suit the
hazards and risks – slowest in supermarket car parks, fastest on
motorways. We're most likely to be speeding where there are fewest
hazards and places with fewer hazards have fewer crashes.

[This is one way in which the camera advocates here show that they
have a fundamental problem with motorists: they simply cannot bring
themselves to accept that motorists can be trusted to do anything,
including adjusting their speed to suit the hazards and risks. They
much prefer to think of motorists as inherently bad and irresponsible
people, who need to be controlled. They have to be negative about
driving, prescribing simple and draconian rules and punishments,
rather than being positive about it and considering it as a skill.]

They are running that advertisement on TV with the child pedestrian.
The claim is that 20% die in 30mph impacts but 80% die in 40mph
impacts. That much is true. But it's not happening in the real world.
Around 11,000 child pedestrians are injured in built up areas (30 AND
40mph speed limits) each year. If we were hitting them at 30mph we'd
have well over 2,000 deaths. But we don't. For the last year of
complete figures (2005) we had 47. That's under half of one percent.
Clearly we're not running into them at anywhere near 30mph on average.
The behaviour that saves has nothing to do with the speed limit. It
has to do with drivers responding to hazards. Beyond even this, there
are probably around 250,000 incidents each year involving child
pedestrians in built up areas, with the vast majority ending in some
braking and a brief scare. If the TV advert painted a true picture AND
we simply ‘stuck to the speed limit', we'd have 50,000 child
pedestrians killed each year. Thankfully road safety doesn't work that
way. It works when people manage risk. [Another fraud which is
regularly committed by camera apologists. Again, why? If cameras
work so well, why are we constantly being lied to and misled?]

It wouldn't matter that the claims were deceitful if, by some stroke
of luck, the speed camera system worked to make our roads safer. But
it doesn't. Our long term reliable year on year reduction in risk has
gone. We've lost our crown as having the safest roads in the world.
We're now ‘bottom of the league'; 17th fastest improving out of 20
European countries.

We have a road safety disaster – and speed cameras are at the root of
it. If earlier trends had continued, road deaths would be falling by
at least 4% per annum and we'd have under 2,000 road deaths each year.
But we have well over 3,000 still. We're over 1,000 lives each year
behind expectation, and it's that, more than anything else that makes
me angry. The authorities are sitting on their hands pretending that
their policies are working. But their policies have failed.

[None of this "vehicle safety improvements have plateaued" rubbish,
and similar stabs in the dark, stacks up. There was clearly a major
change at the same time that cameras were introduced, and other than
cameras themselves, there was no other policy change then that could
reasonably be held responsible. Only someone who already had a pro-
camera agenda would contend that cameras weren't responsible when
nothing else fits. To any reasonable, open-minded person, cameras are
by far the most sensible explanation for the fatality gap.]

They can't face up to the simple fact that road safety works because,
and only because, individuals manage risk in real time. The false
messages surrounding speed cameras are actually making us into a
nation or poorer risk managers. We're all focused on the wrong safety
factor. We're not developing our skills. Department for Transport
doesn't even have a working definition of what it means to be a good
driver.

And it's all gone wrong because of speed cameras. Over 28,000 signed
our recent 10 Downing Street petition to get them scrapped. We won't
get road safety back on track until they have all been scrapped. And
I'll be angry until every last one has gone.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

I'll be angry until every last one has gone.

Paul Smith died an angry man. How sad. Some say his anger killed
him. How tragic.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:33:33 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

I'll be angry until every last one has gone.

Paul Smith died an angry man. How sad. Some say his anger killed
him. How tragic.

Well, that could be useful - claim that he was driving.

His idea, after all....

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
said in
:

It's time for the likes of SPINdrift to stop going on about irrelevant
issues like ancient, peripheral web pages,

Um, no, it's time for you to stop posting twaddle and get round to
that list.

We already know what the loony Smith thought. We debated it with
him, to his considerable discomfit, until he decided that it was
easier to manage debates where he could delete anything he didn't
like and stopped participating here.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Apr 12, 2:16 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
said in
:

It's time for the likes of SPINdrift to stop going on about irrelevant
issues like ancient, peripheral web pages,

Um, no, it's time for you to stop posting twaddle and get round to
that list.

We already know what the loony Smith thought. We debated it with
him, to his considerable discomfit, until he decided that it was
easier to manage debates where he could delete anything he didn't
like and stopped participating here.

Can't come up with anything then Crapman? Because you know that just
like RTTM, the rest of what he says makes complete sense? You really
ought to stop supporting cameras when you know that they're killing
people. "I support cameras because they ban motorists for driving
safely, and I don't care about the lives that I know are being lost
because of them." You vile, selfish ****.

On Apr 12, 10:41 am, _
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:33:33 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

I'll be angry until every last one has gone.

Paul Smith died an angry man. How sad. Some say his anger killed
him. How tragic.

Well, that could be useful - claim that he was driving.

His idea, after all....

I knew it was a non-starter. I try to get the trolls to discuss the
real stuff, instead of the tired, idiotic diversions, and what
happens? A troll replies with one of the most tired and idiotic
diversions ever. Oh well, at least I've proved that the trolls have
absolutely nothing else except the diversions, i.e. they know that
cameras aren't saving lives. This troll, like Crapman, has just
proved that he only likes cameras because they bully safe motorists
off the road. So, like Crapman, this troll is a vile, selfish ****.

I trust that "_" will be complaining to the BBC and the Guardian,
among others, since that's where Paul got the above information from
(i.e. it wasn't "his idea"). What's that, troll? You don't really
care, because it was just an excuse to criticise Safe Speed, and
you're not really outraged by the information itself at all? Why
would you be trying to find excuses to criticise Safe Speed? Is it
because you know you can't criticise what they say about cameras? In
that case, why do you hate Safe Speed and support cameras at all? Is
it because you prioritise persecuting motorists above saving lives,
i.e. you're a vile, selfish ****?

So that's settled then. Anyone who attempts to criticise Safe Speed
by mentioning that information which Paul got from the BBC and the
Guardian is saying "I criticise Safe Speed about peripheral, spurious
issues that I don't actually care about, because I'm just trying to
find any excuse to have a go at Safe Speed despite knowing that
they're right about cameras, since I'm a vile, selfish **** who cares
more about persecuting motorists than saving lives". Well done for
admitting it, "_".

On Apr 12, 9:33 am, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar

wrote:
I'll be angry until every last one has gone.

Paul Smith died an angry man. How sad. Some say his anger killed
him. How tragic.

Nothing to say about any of the real stuff then? Why do you support
cameras even though you know you can't defend them, and you know
they're not saving lives? Looks like another troll who prioritises
bullying motorists above saving lives to me. Looks like another vile,
selfish ****.

Don't you get it, trolls? Every time you deliberately and obviously
avoid discussing the real issues, you're just showing that I'm right!
Again, I'm wiping the floor with you. I expected you to put up a
better fight than this, but it looks like you can't even be bothered
to pretend that cameras save lives anymore. Time for an outright
admission maybe? Then we can all move on and have proper road
safety. Would it really be so bad just to let people drive their cars
without being persecuted? Isn't it about time that you concentrated
on increasing your own safety rather than other people's misery? I
think that secretly you've realised how futile this persecution of
motorists is. All you have to do now is swallow your pride and admit
that cameras are singularly useless, then we can get on to debating
proper road safety. Win-win.

On 13 Apr, 13:35, Nuxx Bar wrote:
I'm right! ... I'm wiping the floor with you.

...and no-one has noticed.

*
you can't even be bothered

Are you surprised?


*Would it really be so bad just to let people drive their cars
without being persecuted?

It happens every day.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
said in
:

Can't come up with anything then Crapman? Because you know that just
like RTTM, the rest of what he says makes complete sense?

ROFLMAO! Yes, it makes sense like the earth being flat, Creation
Science or any number of other delusions make sense to those who
inhabit Planet Kook!

Smith! Perfect sense! That is the best laugh you've given us in
ages!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound