Re: warning speed camera

I didn't think any of them were believable.

Do you seriously believe that if speed limits were abolished, all drivers would drive safely? Sheesh!

But they can't enforce all the laws, all the time. So they have to make judgments as to which laws to enforce, and where. "Just because we can" is not a valid reason for making such decisions.

--

Paul Giverin wibbled ...

Cobblers.

Really? Quote that.

'Course not. Did I say any such thing?

Do they ALL drive safely with speed limits?

None of those things took off in 1993, although mobile phones came closest. But RoSPA trawled coroners reports and sound 19 mobile phone related fatals in 12 years.

I guess you don't have a clue what I've considered do you?

Maybe sarcasm doesn't translate well?

Ah! A clue would have been nice... You know, one of those winking smiley things, or something?

Yes, hello Paul :)

Couldn't sleep last night for the heat, so I got up before the crack of dawn and before I knew where I was I'd fired off a rash of postings. Most unlike me - must be the weather!

Sorry I'd forgotten that this is being cross posted to groups who aren't familiar with my sense of "humour".

i will do thing is htough, i've used the same road to go to work and come abck again for the last 4 years and the only incident i've witnessed was a car that someone had burnt out when it rammed a set of width restriction bollards and in the 25 years that i've been traveling up and down that road (not driving but it's one of those roads that everyone uses more often than they realise) i've only seen one accident, and that was in the snow when the car hit the brick wall this past winter

How many drivers involved in fatal accidents would admit to using a phone at the time?

Your website goes into so much depth to 'prove' a link to camera- influence that the absence of balanced examination of other causes implies that you have not considered other causes. With this imbalance the site reads like a propaganda leaflet and I can come to no other conclusion.

Nah. You leapt too far after I illustrated the point that drivers choose speed and faster roads are only faster because drivers choose to drive faster on them.

The dead ones are never going to admit it ;-)

Phil.

At a guess, at least 1 in 3. Then there's investigation and witnesses.

What a load of absolute tosh. Made up off the top of your head with absolutely no supporting evidence, is it?

That's why it says: "At a guess".

In alt.uk.law dojj writted: :> > If motorists interact dangerously with pedestrians, of course many :> >pedestrians will be lucky - primarily because the burden of caution is :> >thrust onto them, rather than with the driver where it belongs. The : point :> >is that some will not, and where they do not, the results are : catastrophic. :> >Your paragraph above implies that near-misses are acceptable. They are : not :> >acceptable, IMHO, because they will not always result in a miss. : Aircraft :> >near-misses are viewed with extreme seriousness for the same reason. :>

: can someone explain to me what this means please?

Near misses are an indicator of a fundamental problem. In this case that drivers are coming too close to infant pedestrians. The chance nature of these events means that at some point, some of them will result in collision and hence injury or death. Analogously, close proximity events are used by air traffic control as an indicator of how well the air traffic control system is operating. If an airport has six near-misses a day, would you prefer to fly from that one, or from one that has one near-miss per year?

Paul implied that near-misses are okay, as the do not result in harm. I contest that they are an indicator of a problem, and should not be dismissed lightly.

Gavin