Speed cameras have no effect or increase accident rates! Official.

"Doug" wrote in message
...

On 25-Aug-2011, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 25/08/2011 07:58, Doug wrote:
On 24-Aug-2011, Derek wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...accidents.html

How is this relevant to cycling? And BTW, this finding is disputed.


Because, according to you ****wit, cyclists are in constant danger from
car weapons.

But speed cameras have no effect on cyclists, unless you agree that they
promote the danger from car-weapons. Maybe motorists decelerating towards
and accelerating away from speed cameras have less control of their cars
and
are observationally distracted by the cameras so increasing the danger to
cyclists in the vicinity?

I would suggest that speed bumps have that effect too - more so, as drivers
(myself included) are more concerned about the damage to their vehicles as
they drive over the equivalent to a kerb in the road at about 15mph.

On Aug 26, 10:29*am, "GT" wrote:

But speed cameras have no effect on cyclists, unless you agree that they
promote the danger from car-weapons. Maybe motorists decelerating towards
and accelerating away from speed cameras have less control of their cars
and
are observationally distracted by the cameras so increasing the danger to
cyclists in the vicinity?

I would suggest that speed bumps have that effect too - more so, as drivers
(myself included) are more concerned about the damage to their vehicles as
they drive over the equivalent to a kerb in the road at about 15mph.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which is exactly what they are designed to do.

--
Simon Mason

On Aug 26, 6:48*am, "Doug" wrote:
On 25-Aug-2011, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 25/08/2011 07:58, Doug wrote:
On 24-Aug-2011, Derek *wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...cameras-fail-t....




But speed cameras have no effect on cyclists, unless you agree that they
promote the danger from car-weapons. Maybe motorists decelerating towards
and accelerating away from speed cameras have less control of their cars and
are observationally distracted by the cameras so increasing the danger to
cyclists in the vicinity?

-- .


Blimey! Doug has said something sensible for once!

Safe driving comes from being alert, keeping a good lookout, driving
within one's own personal capabilities and the vehicle's capabilities,
anticipating potential hazards (including wobbly old cyclists on e-
bikes) and just being sensible. One size fits all, lowest common
denominator speed limits and speed cameras do not contribute to these,
and just cause major resentment amongst drivers. They don't affect
cyclists of course, which is probably why they are so much in favour
of them.

On Aug 26, 10:46*am, Derek C wrote:


Safe driving comes from being alert, keeping a good lookout, driving
within one's own personal capabilities and the vehicle's capabilities,
anticipating potential hazards (including wobbly old cyclists on e-
bikes) and just being sensible. One size fits all, lowest common
denominator speed limits and speed cameras do not contribute to these,
and just cause major resentment amongst drivers.

Only the ones who break the law.
Motorists such as myself have no fear of cameras at all.

--
Simon Mason

On Aug 24, 11:14*pm, Derek C wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...cameras-fail-t...

Maths!

Maths is another subject that can be added to the list of subjects
that you ( and it seems the Torygraph) don't understand.

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-25, Peter Keller wrote:

If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.

Winning what? Nothing worth having.

It's Kellerkind, he meant whining.

He'll be posting reams of crap about hagfish again, now, that seems to
be his stock response to being put in his place.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:17:31 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-25, Peter Keller wrote:

If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.

Winning what? Nothing worth having.

It's Kellerkind, he meant whining.

He'll be posting reams of crap about hagfish again, now, that seems to
be his stock response to being put in his place.

I don't care what you call it.
I ride my bike for very enjoyable efficient cheap viable basic transport.



--
If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.

Peter Keller wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:17:31 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-25, Peter Keller wrote:

If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.

Winning what? Nothing worth having.

It's Kellerkind, he meant whining.

He'll be posting reams of crap about hagfish again, now, that seems to
be his stock response to being put in his place.

I don't care what you call it.
I ride my bike for very enjoyable efficient cheap viable basic transport.

A bicycle is none of those things, particularly if one is of the urc(m)
mindset.

Enjoyable - no, not if all the whining, moaning and bitching in urc(m)
is typical. Not one of them seems to enjoy cycling, what they love is
bitching about non-cyclists.

Efficient - no, not noticeably. The bicycle consumnes resources in order
to move one person very slowly a limited distance.

Cheap - You have to be bloody joking. Most cyclists of the ilk of those
who go on and on and on about it spend £2000-5000 to get a bicycle that
doesn't have pedals. That price range can see someone set up with a
decent comfortable car.

Viable - again no. It's not viable in any sense of the word other than
being viable as a plaything.

Basic - well yes, OK, I'll give you that. Basic as in rickshaw, sedan
chair and walking.

Transport - no not what any sane person would call transport. It doesn't
suffice other than in the heads of a fw academics living in flat cities
and some complete ******* who think that arriving at work stinking,
filthy and late is acceptable.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:46:12 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-27, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:17:31 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-25, Peter Keller wrote:

If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.

Winning what? Nothing worth having.

It's Kellerkind, he meant whining.

He'll be posting reams of crap about hagfish again, now, that seems to
be his stock response to being put in his place.

I don't care what you call it.
I ride my bike for very enjoyable efficient cheap viable basic
transport.

And you're most welcome. You are not, however, "winning" in any
generally recognisable way.

That's ok. I will continue using my bike for transport and enjoyment.



--
If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:20:08 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Peter Keller wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:17:31 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Huge wrote:

On 2011-08-25, Peter Keller wrote:

If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.

Winning what? Nothing worth having.

It's Kellerkind, he meant whining.

He'll be posting reams of crap about hagfish again, now, that seems
to be his stock response to being put in his place.

I don't care what you call it.
I ride my bike for very enjoyable efficient cheap viable basic
transport.

A bicycle is none of those things, particularly if one is of the urc(m)
mindset.

Agreed that the present urc(m) mindset is that bicycling is none of those
things. I suppose I do not fit into this mindset but no matter, I still
enjoy my bike.


Enjoyable - no, not if all the whining, moaning and bitching in urc(m)
is typical. Not one of them seems to enjoy cycling, what they love is
bitching about non-cyclists.

Agreed. The group names at the moment are misnomers. How can we attract
those who do find bicyccling enjoyable?


Efficient - no, not noticeably. The bicycle consumnes resources in order
to move one person very slowly a limited distance.

For limited distance (eg commuting) I find the bicycle very efficient
and not particularly slow.


Cheap - You have to be bloody joking. Most cyclists of the ilk of those
who go on and on and on about it spend £2000-5000 to get a bicycle that
doesn't have pedals. That price range can see someone set up with a
decent comfortable car.

My present bike (adult sized commuter, not for off-road) cost €180 new.


Viable - again no. It's not viable in any sense of the word other than
being viable as a plaything.

It is very viable for me.


Basic - well yes, OK, I'll give you that. Basic as in rickshaw, sedan
chair and walking.

Thank you for the compliments.


Transport - no not what any sane person would call transport. It doesn't
suffice other than in the heads of a fw academics living in flat cities
and some complete ******* who think that arriving at work stinking,
filthy and late is acceptable.

I am glad I am insane by your definition.
PS my commuting time is very reliable, making your point about lateness a
non-point.



--
If you are riding a bicycle you are winning.