If you have any evidence that speed cameras save lives, please post it
here.  (That's EVIDENCE, Spindrift The Mental, not just copy and paste
crap which doesn't actually address the point.)

Or if you don't have any, and you don't like me showing up speed
cameras' ineffectiveness like this (being an anti-motorist cretin who
wants to see cameras proliferate no matter how many people they're
killing), just post some abuse, some hypocritical shit about me being
a troll, or nothing at all.

Or you could take this opportunity to admit that cameras don't save
lives, stop trying to give motorists a hard time just for daring to
travel (I mean really), and start campaigning for something worthy
instead.  Don't you ever get a bit fed up with *lying* about cameras
saving lives, *lying* about not being anti-motorist, *lying* about
Chapman being a good person, etc, etc?  Don't you think that if
something was worth fighting for then you wouldn't be having to lie
*all the time* to get it?

Evidence that cameras save lives?  None.  Evidence that Crapman and
his minions are lying anti-motorist turds?  Everywhere.  It's time for
you all to correct yourselves and start contributing something
positive to the world, instead of devoting your entire existence to
being a thorn in motorists' side.  Don't you think it's just a little
bit pathetic and negative?  Well, here's your chance to do something
about it.  Don't delay; act now.  Thanks in advance.

Nuxx Bar wrote:
some crap

I,m sorry but you are such an ass that I have to assume you are wrong on 
this.  Iife would be unbearable if you were correct about anything.. so 
best to change my own beliefs so they do not match your own.
> If you have any evidence that

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar wrote:

Do you have any proof that covering wounds with sticking plaster has
prevented any identifiable individual from contracting an infection
which it is known they would otherwise have caught?
If not, should we prevent the sale of sticking plasters?

Jon  writes:

> Do you have any proof that covering wounds with sticking plaster has
> prevented any identifiable individual from contracting an infection
> which it is known they would otherwise have caught?
> If not, should we prevent the sale of sticking plasters?

Why?  They keep the blood off the bedsheets


-dan

Jon wrote:
> Do you have any proof that covering wounds with sticking plaster has
> prevented any identifiable individual from contracting an infection
> which it is known they would otherwise have caught?
> If not, should we prevent the sale of sticking plasters?

Thats an appalling strawman - attaching plasters on injured bits of 
anatomy *could* potentially prevent harm, but dont have any negative 
effect*, so 'its worth a go'. A better simile would be to equate 
(potentially) unnecessary speed cameras with a full body cast - there, 
we would probably accept a given percentage of extra risk (in NOT 
wearing the cast) in exchange for the freedom of movement. In relation 
to cameras, you would imagine that the authorities are seeking some sort 
of optimum balance between risk and speed, otherwise we might as well 
say that *any* speed kills, therefore lets ban movement per se.

I do remember being on some course where they mentioned an allergic 
reaction to the sticky on a plaster, but I think thats extraordinarily 
slim odds.

On 24 Sep, 17:49, Philly  wrote:
> Jon wrote:
> > Do you have any proof that covering wounds with sticking plaster has
> > prevented any identifiable individual from contracting an infection
> > which it is known they would otherwise have caught?
> > If not, should we prevent the sale of sticking plasters?
>
> Thats an appalling strawman - attaching plasters on injured bits of
> anatomy *could* potentially prevent harm,

Getting drivers to drive at sensible speeds can potentially reduce
harm.

> but dont have any negative effect, so 'its worth a go'.

Driving at a sensible speed does not have negative effects. The
presence of speed cameras has no negative effect upon drivers driving
at sensible speeds. E.g. the spread of speed cameras has made no
difference at all to the way I drive.

> A better simile would be to equate (potentially) unnecessary speed cameras with a full body cast

The only problem with any unneccesary speed cameras is the money spent
on them, since they have no effect upon law-abiding drivers apart from
increasing our taxes through paying for them, thanks to the offenders
who make them necessary.

> we would probably accept a given percentage of extra risk (in NOT
> wearing the cast) in exchange for the freedom of movement.

Speed cameras don't limit freedom of movement - I can still drive to
all the places I drove to before they appeared.

Jon wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 17:49, Philly  wrote:
>> Jon wrote:
>>> Do you have any proof that covering wounds with sticking plaster has
>>> prevented any identifiable individual from contracting an infection
>>> which it is known they would otherwise have caught?
>>> If not, should we prevent the sale of sticking plasters?
>> Thats an appalling strawman - attaching plasters on injured bits of
>> anatomy *could* potentially prevent harm,
> 
> Getting drivers to drive at sensible speeds can potentially reduce
> harm.
> 
I've not argued that - it is conceded that lower speed = less chance of 
injury. The argument is that there is some form of balance between our 
ability to get around against the risk of harm while doing so.

>> but dont have any negative effect, so 'its worth a go'.
> 
> Driving at a sensible speed does not have negative effects. The
> presence of speed cameras has no negative effect upon drivers driving
> at sensible speeds. E.g. the spread of speed cameras has made no
> difference at all to the way I drive.
> 
I put forward then that you're not the average Joe.

>> A better simile would be to equate (potentially) unnecessary speed cameras with a full body cast
> 
> The only problem with any unneccesary speed cameras is the money spent
> on them, since they have no effect upon law-abiding drivers apart from
> increasing our taxes through paying for them, thanks to the offenders
> who make them necessary.
> 
I think you're safe there - there is unlikely to be a loss-making camera 
anywhere

>> we would probably accept a given percentage of extra risk (in NOT
>> wearing the cast) in exchange for the freedom of movement.
> 
> Speed cameras don't limit freedom of movement - I can still drive to
> all the places I drove to before they appeared.
> 
> 
It was a simile, as mentioned. I wasn't suggesting that cameras limit 
freedom of movement, merely that they inconvenience drivers, who must 
now pay strict attention to the speedo rather than the road.

Jon wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 17:49, Philly  wrote:
>> Jon wrote:
>>> Do you have any proof that covering wounds with sticking plaster has
>>> prevented any identifiable individual from contracting an infection
>>> which it is known they would otherwise have caught?
>>> If not, should we prevent the sale of sticking plasters?
>> Thats an appalling strawman - attaching plasters on injured bits of
>> anatomy *could* potentially prevent harm,
> 
> Getting drivers to drive at sensible speeds can potentially reduce
> harm.

You could probably be more definite than that and say "getting drivers 
to drive at sensible speeds /will/ reduce harm".

>> but dont have any negative effect, so 'its worth a go'.
> 
> Driving at a sensible speed does not have negative effects. 

Agreed.

> The
> presence of speed cameras has no negative effect upon drivers driving
> at sensible speeds. 

A common misconception.  Cameras might *cap* speeds in the vicinity of 
the cameras, but what effect do you think they have on the wider area, 
and on the overall skill levels of drivers, and on the development 
powers of observation and anticipation.  Surely we want drivers who are 
able to drive at sensible speeds automatically, and /even/ in places 
where there are no speed cameras.

Given that the latest DfT RCGB report states that "exceeding speed limit 
was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents", how could 
cameras, even if they guaranteed 100% speed limit compliance 
countrywide, and *didn't* have any of the quite likely negative effects 
on driver behaviour, have more than a marginal effect on the level of 
road casualties?  RCGB also states "travelling too fast for conditions 
[which is implicitly speed within the speed limit] was attributed to 6 
per cent [of cars involved in accidents]", so we would be much better 
off if we concentrated on eliminating the dangerous, yet self righteous 
drivers who do /not/ break the speed limit, but who drive 
inappropriately fast.

> E.g. the spread of speed cameras has made no
> difference at all to the way I drive.

Do you think they have made any difference to the way other people drive?

>> A better simile would be to equate (potentially) unnecessary speed cameras with a full body cast
> 
> The only problem with any unneccesary speed cameras is the money spent
> on them, since they have no effect upon law-abiding drivers apart from
> increasing our taxes through paying for them, thanks to the offenders
> who make them necessary.

Do you still believe that speed limits are the key to safe roads?

-- 
Matt B