Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
Eh?
|
I said, "So we're agreed that all a speed camera does is take photos? Good..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
]So you don't want to move on from the 70s?
|
I'm happy as the way things are until someone can prove otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
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.
|
Sums it up really. I'd prefer several kilos of prevention to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
So you would be in favour of speed cameras if it could be shown that they reduce speeding (which is bad driving)?
|
If there was no other way of dealing with speeding other than a machine that takes photos then yes I'd be in favour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
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.
|
Speed camera use has increased. Safety levels haven't. Can you see a mismatch there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
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"
|
So faced with information which keeps pointing to the suggestion that speed cameras do little to increase safety, do you still believe it to be so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
I agree, putting more officers in cars should be effective. Also very expensive.
|
Cost over safety eh? I'm glad you'll never stand for election.