-- "Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam"
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
People hitting the brakes hard, others following too close, etc. not too hard to see how these cash generators cause accidents, not prevent them.
I like this part: "The figures were seized on by road safety campaigners who believe that the boom in cameras over the past decade has had little to do with life-saving and more to do with fund-raising."
Also: "We need more traffic police who can stop a drunk or drugged driver, a dangerous or reckless driver, and someone tailgating" Cameras can't catch those. Especially the tailgaters (hate those)
-- Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card
Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card
Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.
Because the major reason why deaths are down is that MANY people are driving a heck of a lot less than they were when gas was $1.50 a gallon and they had jobs to pay for that gas (which now sells for about $4.70 a gallon up here).
and later
bramfrank wrote:
Now, according to the experts out there, the main reason for the reduction in fatalities is the increasing use of seat belts - but then again the per capita numbers of miles being driven is way down, and the public's use of municipal and regional public transit has increased and continues to rise.
and
Double Tap wrote:
Cars have more air bags and are constructed in a way that protects occupants better.
and
Box Car wrote:
Perhaps the largest factor in the reduction of deaths and injuries is due to the construction of vehicles and their required safety features. It is estimated by industry insiders that the entire vehicle fleet is replaced every 15 years. (Think about it - how many 1996 or older model vehicles do you see on the road?) At some point during that 15 years we reach a tipping point where the percentage of older vehicles is lower than the number of vehicles having certain features. That's a given any statistician can agree with.
Another factor that affects the number of accidents, deaths, and injuries is the total amount of vehicle miles driven. The number of miles driven has decreased over the past couple of years and is partially attributed to the cost of fuel and the recession in general.
Another contributing factor is the manner in which our roads and highways are constructed. In the past few years many safety related changes have been incorporated which are largely invisible to the motoring public.
and later
Box Car wrote:
It remains neither party to this discussion can provide definitive proof the root cause for the reduction is due solely to the one factor over another. I will concede the use of cameras is the greatest instrument to changing driver behavior just as you have to admit there are factors involved in the reductions that are, and probably will always remain unknown. We can't prove a negative.
Now that someone is claiming (and I did not find a reference to any "study" as such)that reduction in fatalities are the result of speed cameras being turned off, I wonder if people will come up with reasons that indicate that the two events are not necessarily related.
Now we might need cameras to catch "Car Surfing"..if you saw it on the "Today Show" you will know what I am talking about....what a bunch of insane air heads...I can't believe that this stuff was caught on camera.....just watch out....
Now we might need cameras to catch "Car Surfing"..if you saw it on the "Today Show" you will know what I am talking about....what a bunch of insane air heads...I can't believe that this stuff was caught on camera.....just watch out....
Looking it up now.
-- Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card
Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card
Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.
Now we might need cameras to catch "Car Surfing"..if you saw it on the "Today Show" you will know what I am talking about....what a bunch of insane air heads...I can't believe that this stuff was caught on camera.....just watch out....
What a bunch of idiots! I'm glad the judges are throwing the book at these morons.
Because the major reason why deaths are down is that MANY people are driving a heck of a lot less than they were when gas was $1.50 a gallon and they had jobs to pay for that gas (which now sells for about $4.70 a gallon up here).
and later
bramfrank wrote:
Now, according to the experts out there, the main reason for the reduction in fatalities is the increasing use of seat belts - but then again the per capita numbers of miles being driven is way down, and the public's use of municipal and regional public transit has increased and continues to rise.
and
Double Tap wrote:
Cars have more air bags and are constructed in a way that protects occupants better.
and
Box Car wrote:
Perhaps the largest factor in the reduction of deaths and injuries is due to the construction of vehicles and their required safety features. It is estimated by industry insiders that the entire vehicle fleet is replaced every 15 years. (Think about it - how many 1996 or older model vehicles do you see on the road?) At some point during that 15 years we reach a tipping point where the percentage of older vehicles is lower than the number of vehicles having certain features. That's a given any statistician can agree with.
Another factor that affects the number of accidents, deaths, and injuries is the total amount of vehicle miles driven. The number of miles driven has decreased over the past couple of years and is partially attributed to the cost of fuel and the recession in general.
Another contributing factor is the manner in which our roads and highways are constructed. In the past few years many safety related changes have been incorporated which are largely invisible to the motoring public.
and later
Box Car wrote:
It remains neither party to this discussion can provide definitive proof the root cause for the reduction is due solely to the one factor over another. I will concede the use of cameras is the greatest instrument to changing driver behavior just as you have to admit there are factors involved in the reductions that are, and probably will always remain unknown. We can't prove a negative.
Now that someone is claiming (and I did not find a reference to any "study" as such)that reduction in fatalities are the result of speed cameras being turned off, I wonder if people will come up with reasons that indicate that the two events are not necessarily related.
What I'd like to point out is, the two topics and arguments are not related. For you to bring the two together to make a point, is really baffling.
Setting up speed traps is completely different than police filling ticket quotas, then taking credit for a reduction in accidents.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's wrong to quote people from other threads about other topics. Unless they're actively taking part in this conversation, and even then, it's very stalkerish.
What I'd like to point out is, the two topics and arguments are not related. For you to bring the two together to make a point, is really baffling.
Setting up speed traps is completely different than police filling ticket quotas, then taking credit for a reduction in accidents.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's wrong to quote people from other threads about other topics. Unless they're actively taking part in this conversation, and even then, it's very stalkerish.
Twix, please go back and review the traffic quota discussion. in that discussion,I commented on the fact that deaths had dropped by 20 yearly over a 5 year period - which was a percentage decline of about 40%.
The quotes in my previous post were from those whose said that there were other reasons why fatalities (in the traffic quota article) were down over the five year period and proceeded to cite several of them.
In my opinion their comments could and should apply to the the article in this post.
The article is reporting on statistical data from England. Of course is the explanation for the odd results is easy to understand. They do everything backwards over there, including driving on the wrong side of the road. They even have the steering wheels on the wrong side of the car, right?
-- Tuckahoe Mike -
Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav
Twix, please go back and review the traffic quota discussion. in that discussion,I commented on the fact that deaths had dropped by 20 yearly over a 5 year period - which was a percentage decline of about 40%.
The quotes in my previous post were from those whose said that there were other reasons why fatalities (in the traffic quota article) were down over the five year period and proceeded to cite several of them.
In my opinion their comments could and should apply to the the article in this post.
I don't have to go back and review the thread, I got it the first time. Those quotes do not apply to this thread. Have you noticed that when you click "quote" it stays in that particular thread? Taking a discussion from another part of the forum to try and back up a new argument of yours, is using other people's words against them, and they don't even know you're doing it.
Taking a discussion from another part of the forum to try and back up a new argument of yours, is using other people's words against them, and they don't even know you're doing it.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
The fact is that both articles (this thread and the thread from "Ticket quotas" http://www.poi-factory.com/node/32061) both speak of a decline in fatalaties. I observed in the "Ticket Quotas" thread that there had been a drop in deaths and suggested that this drop should be considered "meaningful" and "an increase in the safety of the citizens".
At this point a number of posters chimed in that the reasons that deaths were down in Montreal could be attributed to a number of other factors - some of which I quoted earlier in this thread.
I did not quote you above but
Twix wrote:
No one is denying the reduction of deaths, only denying giving credit where credit is not due.
So now we are back at my question as to why anyone should agree
Quote:
Axing speed cameras has caused road deaths to FALL
without first determining whether all of the reasons I quoted from "Ticket Quotas" should apply to the UK drop in deaths. If "credit" is not due, then let's not give it here.
Just wondering - would you have had objections had I given the "quotes" without indicating who had made the quote? Your objections make me wonder whether you are trying to divert attention from the fact that the "reasons" (or lack of credit for) why deaths might have declined in Montreal might also apply in the UK article.
This was not a new "argument" of mine - I asked a question about whether the decline in deaths was "meaningful". The responses from the "Ticket Quotas" thread quoted by me in this thread were "arguments" that were intended as answers to my question.
I'll let you have your fun quoting from other threads and answering your own questions. I can't even begin to untangle your last post, so I won't even try.
Not surprising...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353829/Axing-speed-cameras-caused-road-deaths-FALL.html
People hitting the brakes hard, others following too close, etc. not too hard to see how these cash generators cause accidents, not prevent them.
I like this part: "The figures were seized on by road safety campaigners who believe that the boom in cameras over the past decade has had little to do with life-saving and more to do with fund-raising."
Also: "We need more traffic police who can stop a drunk or drugged driver, a dangerous or reckless driver, and someone tailgating" Cameras can't catch those. Especially the tailgaters (hate those)
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.
Shoe on other foot
In the discussion on Ticket quotas
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/32061
these comments were made
Because the major reason why deaths are down is that MANY people are driving a heck of a lot less than they were when gas was $1.50 a gallon and they had jobs to pay for that gas (which now sells for about $4.70 a gallon up here).
and later
Now, according to the experts out there, the main reason for the reduction in fatalities is the increasing use of seat belts - but then again the per capita numbers of miles being driven is way down, and the public's use of municipal and regional public transit has increased and continues to rise.
and
Cars have more air bags and are constructed in a way that protects occupants better.
and
Perhaps the largest factor in the reduction of deaths and injuries is due to the construction of vehicles and their required safety features. It is estimated by industry insiders that the entire vehicle fleet is replaced every 15 years. (Think about it - how many 1996 or older model vehicles do you see on the road?) At some point during that 15 years we reach a tipping point where the percentage of older vehicles is lower than the number of vehicles having certain features. That's a given any statistician can agree with.
Another factor that affects the number of accidents, deaths, and injuries is the total amount of vehicle miles driven. The number of miles driven has decreased over the past couple of years and is partially attributed to the cost of fuel and the recession in general.
Another contributing factor is the manner in which our roads and highways are constructed. In the past few years many safety related changes have been incorporated which are largely invisible to the motoring public.
and later
It remains neither party to this discussion can provide definitive proof the root cause for the reduction is due solely to the one factor over another. I will concede the use of cameras is the greatest instrument to changing driver behavior just as you have to admit there are factors involved in the reductions that are, and probably will always remain unknown. We can't prove a negative.
Now that someone is claiming (and I did not find a reference to any "study" as such)that reduction in fatalities are the result of speed cameras being turned off, I wonder if people will come up with reasons that indicate that the two events are not necessarily related.
Also...
"The number killed or seriously injured fell by 5 per cent, from 7,115 to 6,740. But traffic volume fell by only 1.3 per cent."
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.
Car Surfing
Now we might need cameras to catch "Car Surfing"..if you saw it on the "Today Show" you will know what I am talking about....what a bunch of insane air heads...I can't believe that this stuff was caught on camera.....just watch out....
WLF
Surfing?
Now we might need cameras to catch "Car Surfing"..if you saw it on the "Today Show" you will know what I am talking about....what a bunch of insane air heads...I can't believe that this stuff was caught on camera.....just watch out....
Looking it up now.
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.
Ha!
Now we might need cameras to catch "Car Surfing"..if you saw it on the "Today Show" you will know what I am talking about....what a bunch of insane air heads...I can't believe that this stuff was caught on camera.....just watch out....
What a bunch of idiots! I'm glad the judges are throwing the book at these morons.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/03/2048338/man-gets-4-yea...
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.
Annoying
In the discussion on Ticket quotas
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/32061
these comments were made
Because the major reason why deaths are down is that MANY people are driving a heck of a lot less than they were when gas was $1.50 a gallon and they had jobs to pay for that gas (which now sells for about $4.70 a gallon up here).
and later
Now, according to the experts out there, the main reason for the reduction in fatalities is the increasing use of seat belts - but then again the per capita numbers of miles being driven is way down, and the public's use of municipal and regional public transit has increased and continues to rise.
and
Cars have more air bags and are constructed in a way that protects occupants better.
and
Perhaps the largest factor in the reduction of deaths and injuries is due to the construction of vehicles and their required safety features. It is estimated by industry insiders that the entire vehicle fleet is replaced every 15 years. (Think about it - how many 1996 or older model vehicles do you see on the road?) At some point during that 15 years we reach a tipping point where the percentage of older vehicles is lower than the number of vehicles having certain features. That's a given any statistician can agree with.
Another factor that affects the number of accidents, deaths, and injuries is the total amount of vehicle miles driven. The number of miles driven has decreased over the past couple of years and is partially attributed to the cost of fuel and the recession in general.
Another contributing factor is the manner in which our roads and highways are constructed. In the past few years many safety related changes have been incorporated which are largely invisible to the motoring public.
and later
It remains neither party to this discussion can provide definitive proof the root cause for the reduction is due solely to the one factor over another. I will concede the use of cameras is the greatest instrument to changing driver behavior just as you have to admit there are factors involved in the reductions that are, and probably will always remain unknown. We can't prove a negative.
Now that someone is claiming (and I did not find a reference to any "study" as such)that reduction in fatalities are the result of speed cameras being turned off, I wonder if people will come up with reasons that indicate that the two events are not necessarily related.
What I'd like to point out is, the two topics and arguments are not related. For you to bring the two together to make a point, is really baffling.
Setting up speed traps is completely different than police filling ticket quotas, then taking credit for a reduction in accidents.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's wrong to quote people from other threads about other topics. Unless they're actively taking part in this conversation, and even then, it's very stalkerish.
Please go back and look
What I'd like to point out is, the two topics and arguments are not related. For you to bring the two together to make a point, is really baffling.
Setting up speed traps is completely different than police filling ticket quotas, then taking credit for a reduction in accidents.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's wrong to quote people from other threads about other topics. Unless they're actively taking part in this conversation, and even then, it's very stalkerish.
Twix, please go back and review the traffic quota discussion. in that discussion,I commented on the fact that deaths had dropped by 20 yearly over a 5 year period - which was a percentage decline of about 40%.
The quotes in my previous post were from those whose said that there were other reasons why fatalities (in the traffic quota article) were down over the five year period and proceeded to cite several of them.
In my opinion their comments could and should apply to the the article in this post.
Easy to Explain
The article is reporting on statistical data from England. Of course is the explanation for the odd results is easy to understand. They do everything backwards over there, including driving on the wrong side of the road. They even have the steering wheels on the wrong side of the car, right?
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav
""
Twix, please go back and review the traffic quota discussion. in that discussion,I commented on the fact that deaths had dropped by 20 yearly over a 5 year period - which was a percentage decline of about 40%.
The quotes in my previous post were from those whose said that there were other reasons why fatalities (in the traffic quota article) were down over the five year period and proceeded to cite several of them.
In my opinion their comments could and should apply to the the article in this post.
I don't have to go back and review the thread, I got it the first time. Those quotes do not apply to this thread. Have you noticed that when you click "quote" it stays in that particular thread? Taking a discussion from another part of the forum to try and back up a new argument of yours, is using other people's words against them, and they don't even know you're doing it.
I guess we will....
Taking a discussion from another part of the forum to try and back up a new argument of yours, is using other people's words against them, and they don't even know you're doing it.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
The fact is that both articles (this thread and the thread from "Ticket quotas" http://www.poi-factory.com/node/32061) both speak of a decline in fatalaties. I observed in the "Ticket Quotas" thread that there had been a drop in deaths and suggested that this drop should be considered "meaningful" and "an increase in the safety of the citizens".
At this point a number of posters chimed in that the reasons that deaths were down in Montreal could be attributed to a number of other factors - some of which I quoted earlier in this thread.
I did not quote you above but
No one is denying the reduction of deaths, only denying giving credit where credit is not due.
So now we are back at my question as to why anyone should agree
Axing speed cameras has caused road deaths to FALL
without first determining whether all of the reasons I quoted from "Ticket Quotas" should apply to the UK drop in deaths. If "credit" is not due, then let's not give it here.
Just wondering - would you have had objections had I given the "quotes" without indicating who had made the quote? Your objections make me wonder whether you are trying to divert attention from the fact that the "reasons" (or lack of credit for) why deaths might have declined in Montreal might also apply in the UK article.
This was not a new "argument" of mine - I asked a question about whether the decline in deaths was "meaningful". The responses from the "Ticket Quotas" thread quoted by me in this thread were "arguments" that were intended as answers to my question.
weeeeeee!
I'll let you have your fun quoting from other threads and answering your own questions. I can't even begin to untangle your last post, so I won't even try.