Re: warning speed camera

Well I'd guess it would be closer to 1 in 300. As you offer no supporting evidence my guess is obviously just as valid as yours, yes?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:39:57 +0200, Ace bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the lines of:

Well, I'd venture to say 1 in 1. Because all those that are dead, can't say if they were on the phone. And 'cos I don't like people using the phone whilst they drive, I want to blame them all. :-)

In alt.uk.law Ace writted: :>

:>>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".

: Well I'd guess it would be closer to 1 in 300. As you offer no : supporting evidence my guess is obviously just as valid as yours, yes?

Stewart Report (Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones), section

If you have so little insight, why bother posting?

To try and establish on what basis you think that 1 in 3 drivers involved in a fatal would not only be using a mobile phone, but would admit to it. If that were the case we'd have seen at least a 50% increase in fatalities since mobile phones became common, and that's not even allowinbg for the fact that very few such phone users would admit to it.

Chewie mumbled:

How many people involved in fatal accidents admit to anything?

Quite a few admit to "causing death by dangerous driving" rather than pleading not guilty to that charge.

One chap who was convicted of that charge admitted that his attention was distracted by looking for mints in his jacket pocket.

--

Can you state the 'revenue' figures, and the cost of enforcment/collection. Please also tell us how the difference (i.e. the profit) is spent.

N.

In message , Philip Stokes writes

Nice to see you again Phil. Things have come a long way from those early Amiga days. Its so easy for people to get on line these days. They pick up a CD from Dixons etc and away they go. A bit different to getting AmigaDIS and Tin working properly :)

But did he find them?

Logically established? Fatal accidents increase by a factor of 2 if a phone is in the car, what utter tripe!

I always carry a mobile in the car with me on the off chance of a brake down (comes from running classics a lot) I can't see how on earth that is supposed to have any bearing on the chance of me:

a) having an accident or b) an accident that I am involved in being fatal

unless they bend the laws of physics or have a sufficient mass to cause a gravitational pull great enough to over come the friction between the tyres and the road on a vehicle and pull them together at a significant velocity. Carrying a mobile phone in the car is no different to carrying a bag of change or any other object of equal mass.

I think what is being said is that 1 in 3 drivers involved in a fatal accident who were using a mobile at the time and survived the accident would admit the fact not that 1 in 3 drivers involved in fatal accidents were on a mobile.

There are figures in the report of the two year pilot:

And loopholes in the law !

Shh! Keep it quiet, too late, now everyone done by an improperly marked camera will want there case dropped.

Only police officers get away with this one apparently... :-)

It's saying that slowing drivers down through speed enforcement IN GENERAL by a few miles an hour will reduce their attention to the point where collisions and impact speeds will certainly not reduce, and may well rise.

Safe Speed strongly advocates slowing down in areas of danger.

So you have misread it, but I'll have a good look at the wording and see if it can be improved.

In reply to:

Which just illustrates that it's drivers who choose speed and MAKE some roads faster than others.

Yawn.

I bet any one who hops up and down with there left breast out could get the charge dropped. ;)