Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B
So we're agreed that all a speed camera does is take photos? Good...
|
Eh?
Quote:
|
...There's no defendable reason for that....
|
So you don't want to move on from the 70s?
Quote:
|
...Ok so if I'm reading that properly, it's a case of "OK you killed someone, go down for 15 years" instead of "Ok how can we get it in to your mind that driving the way you did could have caused an accident?". I'd prefer to treat the disease rather than cure it...
|
No, it's a case of "OK you were speeding, which increases the risk of death and serious injury, so we are going to deal with you harshly before you kill someone." An ounce of prevention, etc.
Quote:
|
...I'm in favour of proven methods of attacking the cause of bad driving. ...
|
So you would be in favour of speed cameras if it could be shown that they reduce speeding (which is bad driving)?
Quote:
|
...Certainly, from the link in the original post:
|
Maybe road safety has improved faster in the Nordic countries than in the UK. I don't see how that link shows that speed cameras are ineffective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogermevans
most dont know the national speed limit now changinging wont increase that number...
|
Those people need educating.
Quote:
|
...60 roads are perfectly safe now if you drive with in the limits forthe conditions changing the limit wont change that...
|
So where do the 3000 deaths
per annum occur?
Hmm. The full document referred to in the first link is about cameras at road works, and found a 2% reduction in fatal injuries associated with their use.
As for the second link, there is no mention of the source data, but from the article: "It also acknowledged that road casualty figures have fallen significantly in the town over the past year"
I agree, putting more officers in cars should be effective. Also very expensive.