F*$£%*!G Traffic Wardens!!!

[Bullseye]

Yes, it has been a traffic warden day today!!!

Basically, at work there is a loading bay area for vans to park up and unload or load up on stock, etc. They are suppose to have as long as is needed to do this, except today the traffic wardens have decided that from now on they are going to ticket ANY vehicle that parks up in the loading bay area. Thus making themselves a nice little mint of businesses that have no other option but to park their vans there for deliveries, etc.

On the flip side, there is the back door to my family shop, which is away from the bay and so, in the past used to get ticketed but now that some random shopper parks there each day, it is "outside the jurisdiction of wardens" according to them. It was in their jurisdiction to ticket our van but now its a shopper not a business its ok to park their.

Finally, out side Maplins, buying light bulbs, in a space NEXT to a disabled space but NOT a disabled space, my van was given a ticket (not by official traffic warden but by some private hire one. £60 fine for parking in a shop car park to use the shop in question. And they will not in anyway let it slide or refund the fine unless there is proof that the van was parked in a regular parking spot, not a disabled one, which is impossible to prove as there is no cameras and it is some scruffy private hire twat of a wardens word against ours.

Fucking Traffic Wardens are SCUM! Evil, sadistic, lying, corrupt, need to die SCUM!

[RubberSkin]

I didn't think it was illegal to park in a disabled space if you're not disabled ??? Or maybe i'm talking crap :)

I'd say the onus is on THEM to prove you were in a disabled bay not the other way around. Fuck'em !

Kermit will be along soon, he's good at legal stuff ;)

Or you could try -

'Are you disabled Sir ?'

'Yeah i've got Tourettes, fuck off.' :D

[budda]

If its a council ticket appeal, it makes no odds if you are in the right or not appeal it, send them a stern letter describing the situation and saying you feel its unreasonable. In my experience with this sort of thing you can get 50% over turned quite easily.

[I'm With Stupid]

I think it should be illegal for private companies to do this sort of job. The official ones should be required to take a photo of every offence that isn't a time related one. And the extortion that is car-clamping should also be banned.

[budda]

I think it should be illegal for private companies to do this sort of job. The official ones should be required to take a photo of every offence that isn't a time related one. And the extortion that is car-clamping should also be banned.

They need a licence, but after they have that private companies can clamp and issue tickets.

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

So don't argue that you weren't parked in the handicapt spot. Get a can of spray paint, paint over the sign that restricts the parking, then take a picture of it. Claim that you didn't know it was a handicapt spot because the sign was painted over when you got there.

If they're gonna play cheap, ya might as well do the same.

[Sofie]

I didn't think it was illegal to park in a disabled space if you're not disabled ??? Or maybe i'm talking crap :)

Why would it be legal in the first place?:confused:

[Skive]

If its a council ticket appeal, it makes no odds if you are in the right or not appeal it, send them a stern letter describing the situation and saying you feel its unreasonable. In my experience with this sort of thing you can get 50% over turned quite easily.

Yes. Every parkign ticket I've had, I've appealed and been let off - as if I'd done something wrong in the first place.
I remember parking legitimateely in a council car park that had a deal with a traveldodge I was staying in. I nthis particualr car park money that you put in wouldn't be carried on to the next day. The travelodfe informed me however that if you bought two tickets you were fine and then they showed me a letter concerning the agreement they had with the council.
Next morning I went out to my van and found one of these jobs worth eyeing up my van. I explained the deal and he admitted he knew about it, but he was having none of it, said he didn't care, and slapped me with a ticket.

I appealed and got a letter back saying that the fine had been waved, but was told not to do it again? What the fucks that all about? Either I was right or I was wrong. Don't do it again?

I sent back two more letters requesting an apology and never got any reply.

At the end of the day, it cost me time (and money) to appeal. And I never got an appolgy. I have no problem in verbally abusing any of these cunts now. :mad: I hate the pricks.

If you ever get caught parking in a disabled bay when you shouldn't be and they ask you what disablity you have, tell them tourettes, then tell them they're a 'cunt' and to 'fuck off'.

[Kermit]

Fines for people who park in disabled bays without the badge should be a minimum of £300- anyone who does that is a cunt of the highest order, and really deserves to have their car crushed.

As for the private ticket, simply don't pay it. Put it in writing that you refuse to pay it because you were not parked in the manner that they claimed, and that it is up to them to prove that you were. As they're private, on private land, it would be a civil claim and I expect that they wouldn't bother chasing it. You just might not be allowed back on the private car park.

Traffic Wardens are often on targets- if they don't ticket enough people, they get fired. It is more than their job's worth to let you off or show compassion, because NCP and the other private twats will sack them if they do. That said, the people who whinge the most are the ones who are in the wrong- posh twats in Beemers, and van drivers, who ignore yellow lines should be towed away and charged £500 to get their car back.

As for what happens when the traffic wardens aren't there...utter chaos (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/6213894.stm).

[budda]

That said, the people who whinge the most are the ones who are in the wrong- posh twats in Beemers, and van drivers, who ignore yellow lines should be towed away and charged £500 to get their car back.

Having been a white van man I can understand, yes its annoying for other people but in most places you really dont have a choice. You try finding a parking place in central london to make a delivery!

[I'm With Stupid]

I don't care about the government issuing fines, they're okay. But your car is your property, so they should not be allowed to effectively steal it, or prevent you from driving it. If there is genuinely a hazard, then a government run organisation should be allowed to move your car, then issue you with a fine. They should not be required to give out a certain number of tickets, it's not a fucking business. Imagine if police officers were told they had to arrest a certain number of people today? They'd have to completely forego any common sense. But the most important thing is that a traffic warden's job is to enforce the law, and as such, no private organisation should be allowed to do that.

[budda]

But the most important thing is that a traffic warden's job is to enforce the law, and as such, no private organisation should be allowed to do that.

We are using private companies to run operation theatre's and wage wars for us, so I dont see this being that different.

[Cherrypie2882]

I totally agree, Traffic Wardens are complete arse holes!!! I mean its all fair and well if people take the piss and leave their cars for hours or days where they blantantly cant park but what gets me is the bastards that wait for your ticket to run out and BAM!! they issue you a ticket!! i am talking minutes!! Lurkers!!!

Personally i wouldnt be able to sleep at night knowing that i had issued 20-30 tickets to people, half of which are a shamble!!

[seeker]

But your car is your property,

I think if you seek some legal advice you will discover that,in the eyes of the law, it`s not.

Imagine if police officers were told they had to arrest a certain number of people today?

They are given targets, especially the traffic department.

[I'm With Stupid]

They are given targets, especially the traffic department.
Yeah I know that (and it's bullshit), but I was thinking about something like if they were patrolling outside a few clubs, and they were told rather than keeping the peace, they were required to arrest 10 people each that night. Because that's effectively what they're doing by issuing targets to wardens. The whole point of traffic wardens is (or should be) to keep the streets safe and allow access for things like ambulances, not rake in as much money as possible.

[Kermit]

But the most important thing is that a traffic warden's job is to enforce the law, and as such, no private organisation should be allowed to do that.

Parking control in most cities is now a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

I'd agree that profit-making companies such as NCP should not be allowed to issue tickets, as it creates problems and removes a lack of objectivity. Before traffic wardens would take a decision to wait a few minutes before issuing tickets for overstaying in a parking bay, but in the time of profit and targets they can no longer do so.

Most traffic tickets issued are perfectly justified, though, it just tends to be pricks who don't think the regulations apply to them. And for them I have absolutely zero sympathy. And as I say, anyone who parks in a disabled bay without the badge should be facing a fine of at least £300 (though I'd like to see them crush the posh beemers and 4x4s that are the worst for it).

[seeker]

Yeah I know that (and it's bullshit), but I was thinking about something like if they were patrolling outside a few clubs, and they were told rather than keeping the peace, they were required to arrest 10 people each that night. Because that's effectively what they're doing by issuing targets to wardens. The whole point of traffic wardens is (or should be) to keep the streets safe and allow access for things like ambulances, not rake in as much money as possible.

My guess is that money is the only objective.

[I'm With Stupid]

My guess is that money is the only objective.
Unlike those speed cameras which are all about saving lives. ;)

[budda]

Unlike those speed cameras which are all about saving lives. ;)

Although they are a good money maker its impossible to get one put in an area which hasnt already had a series of nasty accidents.

[I'm With Stupid]

Although they are a good money maker its impossible to get one put in an area which hasnt already had a series of nasty accidents.
I love those ones on a long bit of straight road after a dual carriageway. Specifically to catch people out as they leave a dual carriageway and forget to slow down in time. I think that speed cameras should have some sort of tiered system so that if you get caught several times on a single camera going slightly above the speed limit, you get fined. And if you get caught going dangerously above the limit, you get fined and points for just one offence. That way it's hard to go to an unfamiliar place and get done for drifting over the limit, which any driver knows is quite easy to do. And that way, you're not wasting "dangerous driving" rehabilitation programmes on someone that got caught once doing 34 in a 30 zone.

I also love those people who claimed that the drop in road accidents last year was a result of speed cameras, yet completely ignored the previous 6 or 7 years of rises since speed cameras were operational.

[Kermit]

You can only get a speed camera installed if there has been an accident, and like it or not, one of the most dangerous bits of road is when a long stretch of dual carriageway becomes a single carriageway.

A competent driver shouldn't "drift" over the speed limit. And 34mph in a 30 is dangerous in my book, far more so than 70 in a 60.

[I'm With Stupid]

A competent driver shouldn't "drift" over the speed limit. And 34mph in a 30 is dangerous in my book, far more so than 70 in a 60.
It's stupid to expect everyone to drive perfectly all of the time. It's all well and good saying "a competent driver should, blah, blah, blah" but in practice, people make mistakes. Far more effective at getting people to slow down are those signs that measure your speed and light up with "slow down" if you're going too fast. I mean once I've already been caught by a speed camera, I couldn't give a shit after that. Most people do want to abide by the law, and those that don't will drive like maniacs whenever there are no speed cameras anyway. A gentle reminder of what speed I'm going is far more effective in my opinion. The fact is that speed cameras don't measure dangerous driving.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Speed cameras aren't neccessarily to reduce accidents - they're to reduce accidents which result in death or injury

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5387568.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4636913.stm

They seem to at least be helping in that.

[Randomgirl]

Fines for people who park in disabled bays without the badge should be a minimum of £300- anyone who does that is a cunt of the highest order, and really deserves to have their car crushed...


As for what happens when the traffic wardens aren't there...utter chaos (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/6213894.stm).

I completely agree with you here.

[I'm With Stupid]

Yep, found this one interesting:

FATAL CRASH FACTORS
Losing control
35%
Going too fast for conditions
17%
Failing to look properly
17%
Turning or maneouvring poorly
12%
Exceeding speed limit
12%

[Flashman's Ghost]

and excessive speed was reported in 15% of all accidents and 26% of fatal crashes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5387568.stm

Emphasis mine.

Speed cameras don't neccessarily reduce accidents, they do reduce deaths and serious injuries.

[CptCoatHanger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5387568.stm

Emphasis mine.

Speed cameras don't neccessarily reduce accidents, they do reduce deaths and serious injuries.

...as well as generating an ass-load of revenue.

[Kermit]

Speed cameras don't measure dangerous driving, and shouldn't replace traffic police, but the fact is that a competent driver who is paying attention to the road around him won't get caught speeding. If a driver gets caught speeding then he should be punished for it. I fail to see the issue with that.

If everyone obeyed the law then the revenue raised would be zero...you might as well claim that any fine is just "revenue raising" and an unfair tax on criminals.

Speed cameras are rarely in a place for no reason- the reason is that people are driving too fast for the roads and are causing dangerous crashes.

If you lose control you're nearly always driving too fast for the road conditions.

[Flashman's Ghost]

...as well as generating an ass-load of revenue.
So?

If councils need money to provide services I'd much rather they got that by speed cameras than increasing council tax, especially as there is an added value of less people dying.

[budda]

Most people do want to abide by the law, and those that don't will drive like maniacs whenever there are no speed cameras anyway.

My mate lost his licence because of persistant speeding, strangely enough he learnt his lesson after that.

And even if they are only implicated in 12% of accidents, that's still loads, and its a factor in accidents we can solve far more easily than the others.

[I'm With Stupid]

Tell you what should fuck off straight away. Those speed bumps. Anyone who gives a shit about their car will agree with me here. No wonder so many people own 4x4s.

[CptCoatHanger]

So?

If councils need money to provide services I'd much rather they got that by speed cameras than increasing council tax, especially as there is an added value of less people dying.

Whoa, take a step back; you've been befuddled by a tricksy government.

If the government needs money for services which everyone has access to (or will use) then everyone should pay their equal share, that's fair. Unfortunately, fair isn't always popular policy. I know you’d much rather not have to pay your fair share, you’d like to pay less, it’s only natural. Personally, I’d much rather pay 50% income tax and have the government do away with all the incredibly insulting stealth and emotion tax, but that’s me.

The government has the problem of extracting as much cash from the public as possible. It’s been proven in the past that you can only tax a people so much before you get revolts. So, revenue needs to be generated in an ever increasing number of novel and clandestine ways.

The equation the government usually works with is pretty simple; they already know the components. A = Hot Topic / Someone to Vilify; B = Tax, C = Generate Revenue. All they have to do is cherry pick an emotive topic, work out how to tax it, and then suck up the cash. The really clever bit, the real trickery, is getting you to defend it. Sheer brilliance really!

[Scary Monster]

Tell you what should fuck off straight away. Those speed bumps. Anyone who gives a shit about their car will agree with me here. No wonder so many people own 4x4s.

I'm with you on that one, the only car I drive that hasn't been damaged by speed humps and doesn't kill my back to drive over the darn things is the Discovery.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Whoa, take a step back; you've been befuddled by a tricksy government.

If the government needs money for services which everyone has access to (or will use) then everyone should pay their equal share, that's fair. Unfortunately, fair isn't always popular policy. I know you’d much rather not have to pay your fair share, you’d like to pay less, it’s only natural. Personally, I’d much rather pay 50% income tax and have the government do away with all the incredibly insulting stealth and emotion tax, but that’s me.

The government has the problem of extracting as much cash from the public as possible. It’s been proven in the past that you can only tax a people so much before you get revolts. So, revenue needs to be generated in an ever increasing number of novel and clandestine ways.

The equation the government usually works with is pretty simple; they already know the components. A = Hot Topic / Someone to Vilify; B = Tax, C = Generate Revenue. All they have to do is cherry pick an emotive topic, work out how to tax it, and then suck up the cash. The really clever bit, the real trickery, is getting you to defend it. Sheer brilliance really!

I'm not absolutely sure what you are trying to say. I work in Govt and have worked on taxation issues and now deal with local government, so I'm not at all befuddled by the system.

Speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine. You pay that fine because you break the law (this is not a new law, either). The law is there because despite all the weird and wacky claims by various pressure groups, there is no doubt that people speeding adds to the numbers killed on the road.

The fine is there, because Parliament in its wisdom, believes that there should be some sanction on people who break this law, but jail is over the top.

That is the aim of the fine.

It has some added value in that people who break the law pay more to the upkeep of the state than those who do not, but the befuddled people are those who claim that speed cameras are there to generate revenue. They're not.

[Kermit]

Very interesting coathanger, except that speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine punishing criminal behaviour.

If you don't want to pay speeding fines then there's one very simple solution- don't speed! If everyone did that then the roads would be safer- although speed is only the primary factor in 12% of fatal crashes, a lower speed would preventa lot of other crashes (such as losing control and pedestrian collisons) being fatal.

[budda]

The equation the government usually works with is pretty simple; they already know the components. A = Hot Topic / Someone to Vilify; B = Tax, C = Generate Revenue. All they have to do is cherry pick an emotive topic, work out how to tax it, and then suck up the cash. The really clever bit, the real trickery, is getting you to defend it. Sheer brilliance really!

So presumably you dont want speed limits at all?

[I'm With Stupid]

Can someone explain this rule to me please? "85 percentile speed should be at or above the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) recommended threshold for enforcement (currently 10% +2mph)"

In other words, there have to be 85% of people using the road to go 2mph or more over the limit. So basically, you won't get a speed camera placed outside a pedestrian area, because less than 85% of people will be stupid enough to speed there. And you don't catch the few nutters that go crazy speeds on streets outside schools and cause accidents, but you will catch the 85% of people who go too fast on the long wide road in the middle of nowhere. So according to the rules, 1000 people could've been killed on a road, but they can't put a speed camera there if the majority of drivers stay within the limit. And you say it's about catching those that cause the accidents, rather than making as much money as possible?

[CptCoatHanger]

Speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine.

I don’t draw distinction. You can dress up the act of handing money to the government anyway you like, it’s the same act.

You pay that fine because you break the law (this is not a new law, either). The law is there because despite all the weird and wacky claims by various pressure groups, there is no doubt that people speeding adds to the numbers killed on the road.

I wholeheartedly agree; speeding kills people. I don’t for one second think speed limits are an arbitrary law, and I do agree they need enforcing. I also agree that I hand my money to the government because I broke the law, I’d be silly not to.

The fine is there, because Parliament in its wisdom, believes that there should be some sanction on people who break this law, but jail is over the top.

The fine is there because it generates revenue. A think-tank could come up with thousands of effective ways of reducing speeding, many more effective than a fine I’d wager, but the measure that’s chosen is the fine, why? Revenue.

It has some added value in that people who break the law pay more to the upkeep of the state than those who do not, but the befuddled people are those who claim that speed cameras are there to generate revenue. They're not.

The added value of taxing law-breakers (fining them, if you draw distinction) is that it appeases the general public; a financial reward for the public for being good boys and girls. You placate them with one hand, while slipping the other into their pocket.

[Kermit]

It doesn't mean that...not even 85% of people speed on a motorway at 3am.

[I'm With Stupid]

It doesn't mean that...not even 85% of people speed on a motorway at 3am.
No sorry, it means that police judge that there's an 85% chance of people speeding. But I still doubt that police would judge that there's an 85% chance of people speeding outside a school.

[CptCoatHanger]

Very interesting coathanger, except that speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine punishing criminal behaviour.

If you don't want to pay speeding fines then there's one very simple solution- don't speed! If everyone did that then the roads would be safer- although speed is only the primary factor in 12% of fatal crashes, a lower speed would preventa lot of other crashes (such as losing control and pedestrian collisons) being fatal.

Kermit, I’m more than willing to engage you in this debate. It’s a topic I enjoy discussing and am completely prepared to change my opinions on it, however, I have no interest in personal insults or hyperbole, neither are conducive to anyone learning anything.

I often agree with and respect your opinions, but if you’ve got you angry / provocative hat on today, I don’t want to play.

[I'm With Stupid]

The fine is there because it generates revenue. A think-tank could come up with thousands of effective ways of reducing speeding, many more effective than a fine I’d wager, but the measure that’s chosen is the fine, why? Revenue.
I did find it interesting that the number of fatal crashes went up for quite a few years even after speed camera's were introduced (between 98 and 03 I think), and the pro-speed camera lobby was quite quiet. Then they went down for a couple of years, and suddenly it was all because of speed cameras.

Incidentally, the main road in my town has just got another set of traffic lights, which from what I can see, has done far more to reduce speed than a speed camera would. But they don't make money.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Can someone explain this rule to me please? "85 percentile speed should be at or above the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) recommended threshold for enforcement (currently 10% +2mph)"

In other words, there have to be 85% of people using the road to go 2mph or more over the limit. So basically, you won't get a speed camera placed outside a pedestrian area, because less than 85% of people will be stupid enough to speed there. And you don't catch the few nutters that go crazy speeds on streets outside schools and cause accidents, but you will catch the 85% of people who go too fast on the long wide road in the middle of nowhere. So according to the rules, 1000 people could've been killed on a road, but they can't put a speed camera there if the majority of drivers stay within the limit. And you say it's about catching those that cause the accidents, rather than making as much money as possible?

This is the guidance from Department for Transport on the use of speed cameras

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_611087.pdf

Chapter 6 also includes this
Number of killed
and serious
collisions (KSI)

And I say its not to do with stopping accidents, neither do DfT for that matter.

The safety camera programme's objective is to reduce deaths and injuries on our
roads by reducing the level and severity of speeding and red light running. The aim
is to do this by preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and red light offences,
which includes encouraging changed driver behaviour, through local safety camera
partnership's approved programmes of work. The programme supports the
Government's Road Safety Strategy and its ambitious targets for casualty reduction

[Flashman's Ghost]

I don’t draw distinction. You can dress up the act of handing money to the government anyway you like, it’s the same act.

No, its not. Taxation and fines are not the same - whilst taxes may have some deterrence value (ie a tax on smoking) they're for legal activities. Fines, by there very nature, are a sanction because you did something illegal.


I wholeheartedly agree; speeding kills people. I don’t for one second think speed limits are an arbitrary law, and I do agree they need enforcing. I also agree that I hand my money to the government because I broke the law, I’d be silly not to.

Right so we agree speeding kills and that it needs enforcing.


The fine is there because it generates revenue. A think-tank could come up with thousands of effective ways of reducing speeding, many more effective than a fine I’d wager, but the measure that’s chosen is the fine, why? Revenue.

You seem awfully sure of that. But then none of these magic think tanks have suggested something, so I'm less convinced. Fines are effective at concentrating people's minds, - especially if after several of these fines you also loose your license (if it was revenue it would make more sense to allow people to carry on driving and just rake the cash in). The idea of being fined has certainly made me drive slower.

The added value of taxing law-breakers (fining them, if you draw distinction) is that it appeases the general public; a financial reward for the public for being good boys and girls. You placate them with one hand, while slipping the other into their pocket

You make no sense. Are you trying to suggest people are appeased about paying normal tax, because a miniscule amount of revenue is levied from fining people :confused:

[Flashman's Ghost]

I did find it interesting that the number of fatal crashes went up for quite a few years even after speed camera's were introduced (between 98 and 03 I think), and the pro-speed camera lobby was quite quiet. Then they went down for a couple of years, and suddenly it was all because of speed cameras.

Incidentally, the main road in my town has just got another set of traffic lights, which from what I can see, has done far more to reduce speed than a speed camera would. But they don't make money.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42140000/gif/_42140396_roadcasualty203.gif

The scale means that fatalities aren't clear, but the trend on serious injuries is. Now that's not soley to do with speed cameras, but its naive not to think they don't play a part.

[Aladdin]

I must say it makes me laugh when I hear complaints about speed cameras just being there to 'raise revenue'.

That is a moot point. The real point is that speed cameras will flash you and issue you a fine when you break the law and go over the limit. If people don't want to get fined, they should simply not speed. It couldn't be any simpler.

And if they speed and get flashed, they should think 'fair enough' and pay the fine. Which is exactly what I've done in the past.

Those bastions of law and order, the Mail and the S*n, tend to forget their usually hardline stance about lawbreakers when it comes to road laws. They even speak of a 'war on the motorist' and happily publish full-page advertisements for books that claim to offer you advice & tips on how avoid being fined when caught speeding.

The hypocrisy of it all is beyond belief.

[I'm With Stupid]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42140000/gif/_42140396_roadcasualty203.gif

The scale means that fatalities aren't clear, but the trend on serious injuries is. Now that's not soley to do with speed cameras, but its naive not to think they don't play a part.
So serious injuries went down, yet fatalities went up? Hmm. Interestingly, I read something about the government changing the definition of "serious injuries" as well. I'll try and dig out the source. But you can't change the definition of fatal.

[I'm With Stupid]

That is a moot point. The real point is that speed cameras will flash you and issue you a fine when you break the law and go over the limit. If people don't want to get fined, they should simply not speed. It couldn't be any simpler.
What's that got to do with anything? We're on about reducing accidents and the causes of those accidents on the roads. And some of us aren't convinced that speed cameras are effective at doing that, and the only reason the government maintains the scheme is to avoid losing face, and to raise revenue. I have no doubt that the original intention of them is honourable, I just don't think they are doing their job.

[Kermit]

I often agree with and respect your opinions, but if you’ve got you angry / provocative hat on today, I don’t want to play.

It's not angry or provocative to point out that the simplest way of avoiding paying speeding fines is simply not to speed.

The chance of people speeding is lower outside schools, but in order to install cameras there has to have been fatal accidents. Besides which, even if they are there solely because people speed, I don't see the issue with that. Isn't the police's job to catch criminals?

[CptCoatHanger]

No, its not. Taxation and fines are not the same - whilst taxes may have some deterrence value (ie a tax on smoking) they're for legal activities. Fines, by there very nature, are a sanction because you did something illegal.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. All I’m saying is that it’s two different names for exactly the act. As far as I can see all you’ve described (albeit quite eloquently :) ) is when you call the act one name and when you call it the other. If I call a fart “letting one rip” in front of my friends, and “passing wind” in front of my parents, I still stink.

Right so we agree speeding kills and that it needs enforcing.

Absolutely. I’m all for stopping people being killed.

You seem awfully sure of that. But then none of these magic think tanks have suggested something, so I'm less convinced. Fines are effective at concentrating people's minds, - especially if after several of these fines you also loose your license (if it was revenue it would make more sense to allow people to carry on driving and just rake the cash in). The idea of being fined has certainly made me drive slower.

I’m sure think-tanks have come up with some ideas, just none as profitable as taking money from motorists. I’ll do some research into it after work and see if I can’t come up with some solutions which I feel would as effective (if not more so) than fining motorists.

You make no sense. Are you trying to suggest people are appeased about paying normal tax, because a miniscule amount of revenue is levied from fining people :confused:

What I’m saying is a good way of getting people to agree to hand over their money is to pick an emotive topic, or to vilify someone or something. You can even get Joe Public to defend the tax / fine if you whip them up into enough of a frenzy.

I’ll try and find the exact figures about the total money taken from speed camera fines last year. I think we’ll both agree that it’s not a “miniscule” amount.

[CptCoatHanger]

It's not angry or provocative to point out that the simplest way of avoiding paying speeding fines is simply not to speed.

The chance of people speeding is lower outside schools, but in order to install cameras there has to have been fatal accidents. Besides which, even if they are there solely because people speed, I don't see the issue with that. Isn't the police's job to catch criminals?

I didn't think that your first response to me was either angry or provocative, but I’ve been about here long enough to know that it frequently goes that way.

I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to speed, nor that there shouldn't be punishments and measures to prohibit speeding in place. I just think that always the first answer a government provides to a problem is to make the public reach into their pocket.

I also think that the government have the answer: “tax”, they just keep inventing the questions.

[seeker]

Fines are effective at concentrating people's minds, - especially if after several of these fines you also loose your license (if it was revenue it would make more sense to allow people to carry on driving and just rake the cash in). The idea of being fined has certainly made me drive slower.

I believe there were approxiamately 2 million prosecuted last year. That`s a hell of a lot of unconcentrated minds.

If there are 2 million dangerous individuals out there, maybe it`s time to close down the road network.

[CptCoatHanger]

I must say it makes me laugh when I hear complaints about speed cameras just being there to 'raise revenue'.

That is a moot point. The real point is that speed cameras will flash you and issue you a fine when you break the law and go over the limit. If people don't want to get fined, they should simply not speed. It couldn't be any simpler.

And if they speed and get flashed, they should think 'fair enough' and pay the fine. Which is exactly what I've done in the past.

Those bastions of law and order, the Mail and the S*n, tend to forget their usually hardline stance about lawbreakers when it comes to road laws. They even speak of a 'war on the motorist' and happily publish full-page advertisements for books that claim to offer you advice & tips on how avoid being fined when caught speeding.

The hypocrisy of it all is beyond belief.

Aladdin, with all due respect you’re working at the end of the thought process when you should be back at the start. Taking the public’s money shouldn’t immediately be the top answer to every problematic question the government poses.

Do you honestly think that fining is the only, the most effective, and the most morally honest way of reducing speeding?

[I'm With Stupid]

Aladdin, with all due respect you’re working at the end of the thought process when you should be back at the start. Taking the public’s money shouldn’t immediately be the top answer to every problematic question the government poses.

Do you honestly think that fining is the only, the most effective, and the most morally honest way of reducing speeding?
Just wait 'til they start doing it for putting plastic in with your paper recycling.

[CptCoatHanger]

Just wait 'til they start doing it for putting plastic in with your paper recycling.

I lauged when i first read your post, but it's actually probable.

They'll first vilify people who don't recycle, then people who don't recycle everything, and before you know it the public will be more than willing to accept fines for the plastic and paper mixing scum bags.

[I'm With Stupid]

I lauged when i first read your post, but it's actually probable.

They'll first vilify people who don't recycle, then people who don't recycle everything, and before you know it the public will be more than willing to accept fines for the plastic and paper mixing scum bags.
Probable? I'm pretty sure it already happens in New York. Possibly just businesses at the moment though. Great when someone walks past your bin and throws something in it without looking.

[Kermit]

I lauged when i first read your post, but it's actually probable.

Already been done.

Some twat in some thieving council decided to prosecute someone for putting junk mail in their recycling box, and they won with a £100 fine.

There does come a limit. Fining speeders is fine because speeding is dangerous (though some of the speed limits are stupid, that's a different question), but fining for things that are neither dangerous nor a nuisance is wrong.

[Aladdin]

What's that got to do with anything? We're on about reducing accidents and the causes of those accidents on the roads. And some of us aren't convinced that speed cameras are effective at doing that, and the only reason the government maintains the scheme is to avoid losing face, and to raise revenue. I have no doubt that the original intention of them is honourable, I just don't think they are doing their job. What makes you believe speed camres are not effective at cutting deaths?

In urban areas in particular they have shown an excellent record of reducing accidents.

You can perhaps argue that fining drivers for doing 80mph on a motorway on a clear day with little traffic is unfair and uncalled for. And I would even agree with that. But that would be another argument altogether anyway, namely whether our speed limits are always appropriate.

[I'm With Stupid]

What makes you believe speed camres are not effective at cutting deaths?
No, because since the introduction of speed cameras, the statistics say otherwise.

[Aladdin]

Aladdin, with all due respect you’re working at the end of the thought process when you should be back at the start. Taking the public’s money shouldn’t immediately be the top answer to every problematic question the government poses.

Do you honestly think that fining is the only, the most effective, and the most morally honest way of reducing speeding? I'm honestly at a loss as to how else you could make people drive slower.

There has been talk about 'naked' streets with no lines, signals or even kerbs in order to make the driver more aware and have him reduce his speed, but this is only in a very early experimental phase and would only be applicable to certain urban streets.

Of course they could also install devices in cars that measure and record the speed at all times, like they do in lorries and coaches... but most people in this country would rather commit hara-kiri than allow the government to put such a device in their cars.

[Aladdin]

No, because since the introduction of speed cameras, the statistics say otherwise. There are obviously statistics to suit every opinion and position on this debate. I remember seeing studies in some papers (invariably the Telegraph or the Mail) that claim speed cameras haven't reduced accidents. But I have also seen in the past other studies published by the government that show a dramatic and undeniable reduction in accidents and average speeds since a camera has been erected at a certain site.

So obviously someone (probably both sides) are massaging figures and distorting the truth a little. The only thing I am sure of is that at the point where a clearly visible speed camera is, practically 100% of vehicles are going to reduce their speed to the limit or just above it. And while nothing is stopping vehicles from accelerating past this point, cameras placed at accident blackspots, schools etc must be saving lives.

[I'm With Stupid]

There are obviously statistics to suit every opinion and position on this debate. I remember seeing studies in some papers (invariably the Telegraph or the Mail) that claim speed cameras haven't reduced accidents. But I have also seen in the past other studies published by the government that show a dramatic and undeniable reduction in accidents and average speeds since a camera has been erected at a certain site.

So obviously someone (probably both sides) are massaging figures and distorting the truth a little. The only thing I am sure of is that at the point where a clearly visible speed camera is, practically 100% of vehicles are going to reduce their speed to the limit or just above it. And while nothing is stopping vehicles from accelerating past this point, cameras placed at accident blackspots, schools etc must be saving lives.
Well you can't misrepresent figures on the overall number of deaths occuring on the road per year. You can change what is defined as a serious injury. You can ignore the fact that serious injuries have gone down every year since the 50s due to safer cars with better brakes and so forth. You can choose to position cameras at the 50 sites with the most deaths in the last 3 years and expect the law of averages to ensure that the vast majority of these will not be in the top 50 in the next 3 years camera or no camera (3 years isn't enough data to measure any real trend).

[I'm With Stupid]

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality4.gif
Here's the chart, with the red line being actual road fatalities, and the yellow line being the trend based on the data between 1978 and 1993, the blue line being the trend between 1950 and 1993. As you can see, since the introduction of speed cameras (in 93), this trend has practically halted. Now I'm not saying that speed cameras are the reason for this, just that they're clearly not doing a damn thing to help. Then again, maybe if people had their eyes on the road rather than their speedos, it might help a bit. I was driving in Preston the other day, and it was the first time I was driving where I would get my own speed ticket rather than one for my instructor. I spent most of the time looking at the speedo.

[Aladdin]

Hold on a second. There are clearly different ways to interpretate data and to look at safety.

I will try to dig out some of the studies the goverment has published. But regardless of what you have posted there, which I'm sure it is true, if a study says there were x deaths/serious accidents at a spot before a camera was introduced and a significantly lower number after the camera went up, clearly the camera was directly responsible for the reduction in accidents was it not?

[seeker]

if a study says there were x deaths/serious accidents at a spot before a camera was introduced and a significantly lower number after the camera went up, clearly the camera was directly responsible for the reduction in accidents was it not?

No, not really :p

I`ve tried to point out the flaw in statistical analysis before.

The reduction in deaths could be the result of numerous variable inputs.

[I'm With Stupid]

But regardless of what you have posted there, which I'm sure it is true, if a study says there were x deaths/serious accidents at a spot before a camera was introduced and a significantly lower number after the camera went up, clearly the camera was directly responsible for the reduction in accidents was it not?
Well think about it. You pick the ten stretches of road that have had the most accidents over the past 3 years, what is the chance that they will be the top ten accident blackspots over the next 3 years, assuming that the number of accidents remains about the same? Then you put cameras on them, the law of averages means the accidents happen in other places on the road, because the places accidents happen are largely random, and you claim that the cameras are the ones causing the reduction. And on a genuinely dangerous road, I'd rather have drivers looking at the road than the speedo, and making a judgement based on that.

[Man Of Kent]

Here's the chart,...

There's a few things worth bearing in mind. One is the enforcement of drink/driving laws another is the seat belt laws and then the extension of that to rear belts and child seat...

How many were people run over, how many were drunks and how many were as a direct result of speed, how many deaths per accident (i.e. 20 people dying in a coach crash would screw up the figures) etc etc etc

[Man Of Kent]

Well think about it. You pick the ten stretches of road that have had the most accidents over the past 3 years, what is the chance that they will be the top ten accident blackspots over the next 3 years, assuming that the number of accidents remains about the same?

The same chance as it being any other road.

the law of averages

Statistical nonsense. The average throw of a die is 3.5

[Kermit]

And on a genuinely dangerous road, I'd rather have drivers looking at the road than the speedo, and making a judgement based on that.

Speed cameras make people slow down for accident blackspots, though, which is why they are successful. A competent driver should know roughly how fast he is driving without having to look at the speedon (if he has to look at the speedo every 20 seconds then he shouldn't be on the road), and speed cameras at junctions focus the mind- he'll be touching the brake not the speedo.

It is rare that 20 miles of a road would be an accident blackspot. Most speed cameras on rural trunk roads cover junctions- for instance on the A69, one of the most dangerous roads in the north-east, three of the four speed cameras cover dangerous crossroads and the fourth is in the middle of a village. On the A1 north of Newcastle its the same- one covers the end of a dual carriageway and prevents people doing 95mph to scream past trucks, and two more cover dangerous blind junctions (one being right next to a school).

I fail to see what the issue with those speed cameras is, yet there are regular campaigns to get all speed cameras in Northumberland removed.

Arguments about safety are important, but they miss the crucial point. Speeding kills. Speeding is against the law. Speed cameras catch speeders. Speeders are, by definition, criminals. The police are doing their job wonderfully- catching criminals.

[seeker]

Speeding kills. Speeding is against the law. Speed cameras catch speeders. Speeders are, by definition, criminals. The police are doing their job wonderfully- catching criminals.

There is a disconnect between the first sentence and the logic inherent in the following four sentences.

[bigwobblybob]

I dont mind speed cameras however if they have no way of proving whos driving at the time why the hell should you have to tell them.

[Skive]

I don't feel guilty in the slightest about hacking it along the motorway at 100 when it's quiet in good conditions. It's certainly not as dangerous as doing 70 on a dual carriageway in rush hour while it's raining.

Speed laws in this country are a joke. Variable speed limits are the way forward.

[Skive]

And the job 'cunt' label goes hand in hand with the job desription for traffic wardens. Same with the old bill.

[Kermit]

I don't feel guilty in the slightest about hacking it along the motorway at 100 when it's quiet in good conditions. It's certainly not as dangerous as doing 70 on a dual carriageway in rush hour while it's raining.

Speed laws in this country are a joke. Variable speed limits are the way forward.

I agree with all that, but that doesn't mean that speed cameras are bad.

The law is x, the law is sometimes wrong, but if you break it you get punished. If anyone feels that strongly about speeding fines they shouldn't speed.

Generally traffic wardens are right to issue tickets. Any cunt who parks on double yellows or especially in a disabled bay deserves it.

[Skive]

Generally traffic wardens are right to issue tickets. Any cunt who parks on double yellows or especially in a disabled bay deserves it.

The problem is that they often give tickets when they cleary shouldn't.

Look at this cunt. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408030&in_page_id=1770

[I'm With Stupid]

A competent driver should know roughly how fast he is driving without having to look at the speedon (if he has to look at the speedo every 20 seconds then he shouldn't be on the road), and speed cameras at junctions focus the mind- he'll be touching the brake not the speedo.
Exactly, roughly. Roughly is the difference between 30 and 33. Roughly is the difference between a ticket and no ticket. It has been shown in these roads that have already been discussed (the ones in Holland with limited road markings and signs) that if you give the driver the responsibility to make decisions, in the vast majority of cases, it will result in more careful driving and fewer accidents. The fact is that we saw a steady decline in the number of fatalities on the roads until the year speed cameras were introduced (or more accurately, until the government adopted a policy of "speed kills") and that has stopped. The fact is that countries without a "speed kills" policy have continued to see a decline in the number of fatalities on the roads in line with trends in previous years, whereas the countries with a policy similar to that of Britain have almost universally seen similar lack of progress in stopping fatalities.

I'm sorry, but no-one has address the fact, that the number of fatalities on our roads has failed to be reduced, when practically year on year for 40 years previously they were. Surely if speed cameras were effective, then not only would serious injuries be reduced, but also some of the fatalities would be too?

[Aladdin]

Perhaps deaths around the country would have increased if cameras hadn't been installed then.

And this still looks pretty compelling to me:

Fatalities at camera sites

Per year before: 265
Per year after: 160
Absolute change: -105
Percentage change: -40%
Figures are annualised averages and relate to 3,376 camera sites in partnership areas
Source Dept for Transport
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3807325.stm



And there are other effects of speed cameras as well. For instance deterrance. And quick detection of dangerous drivers. A driver who does 50mph on built up areas is a danger to others and deserves a ban. Without speed cameras he will only be caught by pure luck, if a police patrol happens to spot him. With cameras he will be caught much faster.

[Kermit]

To extrapolate from the data that the road deaths should have gone down further than they have is a gigantic error, and probably a deliberate one at that. There have been too many other variables which have made more impact- tougher drink-drive laws, safer cars (ABS, airbags, better energy dispersal), and, in particular, the mandatory introduction of seatbelts in the 1980s. The huge drop in the 1980s is as a direct result of clunk-click, something which can't be repeated.

Speed does kill, that fact is inarguable- if you hit someone at 25mph they will probably live, but if you hit them at 35 they probably won't. You are obviously more likely to survive a head-on collision at 50mph than you are at 75mph.

Speed cameras protect small sections of dangerous road, and that is the data that should be extrapolated. The anti-camera lobby never ever seems to do that though...funny that.

As for the traffic warden, to be honest he was right. Most double yellow lines also have signs up saying no parking, he knew that he shouldn't park there, and I have no sympathy at all.

[I'm With Stupid]

Speed cameras protect small sections of dangerous road, and that is the data that should be extrapolated. The anti-camera lobby never ever seems to do that though...funny that.
Like I said, to determine that a piece of road is dangerous based on 3 years data is bollocks. And yes, the chances are that if you pick the top 10 worst sites over the past three years, these exact 10 sites would not have been in the top 10 over the next three years regardless of speed cameras. They're picking sites with unusually high accident rates over three years, and therefore the chances are that the accidents will happen elsewhere instead, and you can report that accidents decline "at the sites which cameras where installed." If this wasn't the case then surely one could expect that in the areas where cameras were installed fatal injuries would be down, and everywhere else it would remain fairly constant, and as a result overall fatalities would be down. And as we see, that is bullshit.

I notice you mention that the anti-speed camera lobby are dismissing your data on this fact. At least I'm addressing it, and arguing my point. What's your argument? "To extrapolate from the data that the road deaths should have gone down further than they have is a gigantic error, and probably a deliberate one at that." Well that is clearly crap. For a start, how can you just instantly dismiss such a huge shift in something that has remained relatively constant for 40 years? And I know because I have already said that the data shows that in other European countries without the "speed kills" policy have seen a steady decline in line with expectations. Countries like Germany, which give the driver the responsibility, have continued to see declining road fatalities. Whereas countries like the UK have failed to see the same progress. How do you explain that one? That is to be expected because of innovations in car safety. You seem to think that seatbelts, ABS, and all that other stuff is now at a dead end, and they no longer work to improve car safety. Well they have just added another star to the Euro NCAP safety ratings as a measure of how much they have achieved in the short period of time. I'm not saying that the data from this side of the argument is perfect in any way, but compared to that government crap, which has a huge interest in making it appear that speed cameras are working, it's positively saintly.

[Flashman's Ghost]

As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

However to be honest its just common sense that the faster you are going the more likely that the pedestrian who steps out is more likely to be hit (because you can't brake in time) and is then more likely to die (because hitting someone at 40 mph is more likely to kill them than hitting them at 30mph).

The fact that there are also other reasons for the number of deaths on the roads going down doesn't mean that speed cameras don't play a part.

[Kermit]

They're picking sites with unusually high accident rates over three years, and therefore the chances are that the accidents will happen elsewhere instead

Are you going to prove that?

If someone slows down for a dangerous junction, and therefore doesn't crash into someone pulling out at 90mph, how is that crash going to happen somewhere else?

Aladdin has shown what difference the camera sites have made.

It's common sense that speed kills- even where it isn't the primary cause, if you hit something at 40mph you've more chance of walking away than if you hit it at 90mph. Speed is dangerous.

I can easily dismiss the flawed extrapolation for what it is. Refinements in car safety will make a difference, but not as much as wearing a seatbelt or not driving when pissed- both of which account for a lot of the decrease in road fatalities since 1975. It's inherently flawed to say that deaths should come down because they always have done. And even refinements will make smaller impacts as technology improves- putting ABS on a car will make more of an impact than putting better ABS on it.

I honestly don't understand the logic of anyone who campaigns against speed cameras. Some speed limits are wrong (I'd like to see slightly higher limits on motorways) but for the most part they are fine and the people driving too fast are wrong.

[I'm With Stupid]

The fact that there are also other reasons for the number of deaths on the roads going down doesn't mean that speed cameras don't play a part.
But they obviously don't play a part, because they are not going down in the countries that use them extensively, like the UK. I just feel that all of the evidence so far points to greater driver responsibility resulting in better driving overall and fewer road deaths, rather than the iron fist system that is currently in place. And every positive new development that comes out seems to point to that, like the combined road/pedestrian areas without road signs, or pedestrian crossings or anything, that force drivers to take responsibility. As soon as people expect someone else to take responsibility, they stop caring. Every driver must've had someone step out onto a zebra crossing without looking, because why should they look? It's someone else's problem. Maybe speed cameras do cut deaths, but it's inconslusive, and in my opinion, the evidence is highly dubious both in it's source and it methods of data collection. But maybe they're so focused on "speed kills" that they've ignored the other 88% of causes of road injuries. But I doubt that's the reason myself.

[Kermit]

It's more than 12%, though, isn't it?

Unless you think that people who are driving at 25mph lose control and fatally crash often...

[Flashman's Ghost]

Again you try and quote flawed stats which go against common sense (without a source).

Speed cameras are not the answer on their own - no-one is suggesting they are, but the idea that the evidence that speed cameras don't make a difference is so barking you could put a lead on it and take it for a walk.

[I'm With Stupid]

It's more than 12%, though, isn't it?

Unless you think that people who are driving at 25mph lose control and fatally crash often...
Just going off the data that was posted. I'll remind you:

FATAL CRASH FACTORS
Losing control
35%
Going too fast for conditions
17%
Failing to look properly
17%
Turning or maneouvring poorly
12%
Exceeding speed limit
12%

Only one of those factors is caught by a speed camera, because the speed camera doesn't take into account the conditions.

[CptCoatHanger]

But they obviously don't play a part, because they are not going down in the countries that use them extensively,

[ snip ]

But maybe they're so focused on "speed kills" that they've ignored the other 88% of causes of road injuries. But I doubt that's the reason myself.

Dude, if you've ever slowed down for a speed camera, then they work. Speed cameras are good at slowing drivers down, and even better and taking their money.

I'm not arguing they're not effective, just that they're as much a revenue generator as a speed deterrent.

[I'm With Stupid]

Again you try and quote flawed stats which go against common sense (without a source).

Speed cameras are not the answer on their own - no-one is suggesting they are, but the idea that the evidence that speed cameras don't make a difference is so barking you could put a lead on it and take it for a walk.
Yep, so flawed that you've failed on every occasion to point out the flaws.

France: 2.7% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 10% 1995 to 2000

Germany: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 26% 1995 to 2000

Italy: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 9.7% 1995 to 2000

Belgium:6.0% rise in motorway casualties 1999 to 2000
Fatalities up 1.4% 1995 to 2000

Sweden:0.4% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities up 3% 1995 to 2000

UK: 0.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
And the fatalities are shown on the graph I presented earlier, but remained fairly constant.

Now you will notice that the first three countries, that have a policy focusing on driver responsiblity, have seen an overall drop in injuries and fatalities. The second three countries have a policy of using speed cameras to force drivers to drive within the limits. And I think you can work out the rest for yourself. Each is the official statistics from each country taken from the Safe Speed website, which campaigns for the implimentation of the measures I have been describing throughout this thread.

[Kermit]

JI'll remind you:

Yes, I can read.

Why do you think people lose control? Because they're driving too fast!

Same with all the other ones...

Speed kills. Do you dispute that?

Speed cameras shouldn't replace traffic police, but to try and claim that they don't work is ludicrous. Especially with spurious "stats" you can't even link to.

Speed cameras only raise revenue from criminals. What's the problem with that?

[Flashman's Ghost]

Yep, so flawed that you've failed on every occasion to point out the flaws..

OK here goes. The figures are starting from a higher level, because historically many of these countries have failed to put in measures that the UK has to reduce accidents.

France: 2.7% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 10% 1995 to 2000

13.7 deaths per 100,000

Germany: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 26% 1995 to 2000

9.8 per 100,000

Italy: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 9.7% 1995 to 2000

12.9 per 100,000

Belgium:6.0% rise in motorway casualties 1999 to 2000
Fatalities up 1.4% 1995 to 2000

15.4 per 100,000 people


Sweden:0.4% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities up 3% 1995 to 2000

5.6 per 100,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mot_veh_dea-health-motor-vehicle-deaths
All from

UK: 0.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000

UK has 5.6 per 100,000 people

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

And the fatalities are shown on the graph I presented earlier, but remained fairly constant.

Yes, because the UK is dropping from a low base.

Now you will notice that the first three countries, that have a policy focusing on driver responsiblity, have seen an overall drop in injuries and fatalities. The second three countries have a policy of using speed cameras to force drivers to drive within the limits. And I think you can work out the rest for yourself. Each is the official statistics from each country taken from the Safe Speed website, which campaigns for the implimentation of the measures I have been describing throughout this thread

Now you will notice you are around twice as likely to be killed in France, Germany or Italy where they focus on driver responsibility than in the UK or Sweden. What does that tell you?

[I'm With Stupid]

Why do you think people lose control? Because they're driving too fast!
You assume. Trying to change the CD player while driving, talking to someone and not paying attention. If the reason they lost control was that they were going to fast, then surely that would come under excessive speed?

Here (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/international2.html) but since you've completely ignored the stats I've presented so far, I expect you to do the same here, since you've already made your mind up anyway. I'm sure I can find plenty more sources of the same information, but I would only do so if I expected you to not dismiss it outright anyway. I seriously hope your next reply is actually trying to address the issues raised by these stats, rather than dismiss the source instead. Because even if you do still believe there is a place for speed cameras, it does show a disturbing trend that road fatalities are not being cut in the same way as the 40 years before that. So what could the possible reasons for that be?

[I'm With Stupid]

Now you will notice you are around twice as likely to be killed in France, Germany or Italy where they focus on driver responsibility than in the UK or Sweden. What does that tell you?
So if America cut it's obesity by 25% and Sweden's went up by 5%, you would consider Sweden's policy to be the most effective, because it still has the lower obesity overall? That doesn't make sense. It's the changes that occur that measures whether a policy is effective. There could be many factors involved in one country having higher overall casualties than another. But the fact is that France, Germany and Italy are cutting fatalities at a faster rate than the UK (or more accurately, actually cutting them), means that their policy is more effective. As far as I can tell, they have the same cars, with the same safety record, the same seatbelts, the same ABS. What other measures do you know of that they are putting in place that the UK did ages ago?

[Kermit]

The reason why there were bigger drops before is because the target was much bigger- as explained, you save more lives by making people wear seatbelts than you do my making them wear better seatbelts. You save more lives introducing airbags than you do with introducing better airbags.

The reason why Italy and France can make bigger cuts is because they are coming from a bigger starting point.

It's easier to lose two stone in weight if you weight 20 stones than if you weigh ten, but that doesn't mean the fat person is on a better diet.

I'd also suggest that if the fatality rate is remaining constant as more and more people travel on the roads, then the ratio of fatailities is lower, which proves that the road safety policy is working.

[I'm With Stupid]

The reason why there were bigger drops before is because the target was much bigger- as explained, you save more lives by making people wear seatbelts than you do my making them wear better seatbelts. You save more lives introducing airbags than you do with introducing better airbags.

The reason why Italy and France can make bigger cuts is because they are coming from a bigger starting point.

It's easier to lose two stone in weight if you weight 20 stones than if you weigh ten, but that doesn't mean the fat person is on a better diet.

I'd also suggest that if the fatality rate is remaining constant as more and more people travel on the roads, then the ratio of fatailities is lower, which proves that the road safety policy is working.
Well the fatality rate is based on per 100000 miles travelled in a vehicle on the road. But anyway, I don't think we're gonna agree, so I might leave it there. Think there have been some good points raised though.