|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...d-cameras.html
Lower IQ people "more likely to support speed cameras" A large-scale research project has concluded that people with lower IQ levels are more likely to be in favour of speed cameras than those with greater intelligence. The survey, carried out in town centres, by telephone, in print and on the Internet (e.g. on the newsgroup uk.rec.cycling), gathered data on those who supported and opposed cameras, their reasons for doing so, their comments, their analytical skills, and other areas. Some of the survey's findings were as follows: - Those who had low IQs were generally unable to comprehend the more sophisticated arguments for and against speed cameras. Since they could only understand the more "obvious" and simple concepts, such as "Slower is safer", they usually sided with cameras, since most of the arguments against speed cameras required greater intellect to understand. This was especially true with stupid people who were also arrogant, as they had a greater tendency to think "If I don't understand it, it can't be real" or similar. - Those who were less skillful drivers were also more likely to support speed cameras. Less skillful drivers tend to drive far below the mean speed, and such drivers tended to welcome "Speed kills" rhetoric without questioning it at all, since this allowed them to delude themselves that "The other [faster] drivers are the dangerous ones and I'm better and safer at driving than all of them". - Those who supported speed cameras did not generally understand key facts surrounding cameras' effectiveness (or lack of), due either to low IQ or having not come across such facts. The few camera supporters who did understand the important facts were found almost exclusively to be supporting speed cameras for reasons other than road safety, for example an agenda against motorists. - Public support for speed cameras was on a significant downward trend amid growing anger that the cameras were being used for revenue-raising or social engineering. 82% of respondents said that they opposed speed cameras, of which 53% strongly opposed them. Just 10% of respondents were in favour of speed cameras, down from 28% 5 years ago. "If you know someone who supports speed cameras, the chances are that they are either ignorant of the key facts regarding cameras, generally thick, or not very nice, since they will probably support cameras either because they don't know the key arguments, they don't understand them, or they support cameras for reasons other than road safety," said Gareth Champion, one of the scientists conducting the research. "People in the latter category tend invariably to be dishonest, claiming that they support cameras for road safety reasons when they clearly do not. This suggests that they are ashamed of their real agenda, and that they are rather unpleasant and duplicitous in general." Guy Chapman, who recently featured in about.com's "10 Most Hated People On The Internet" vote, was one of the people found to be supporting speed cameras because he disliked motorists, and wanted them to be bullied off the roads "no matter what the death toll". Chapman was asked to comment, but as usual when being challenged by someone who doesn't agree with him completely in every way, he was sneeringly obnoxious, and evaded the (evidently difficult) questions that we asked, concluding his response with "**** off". |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:17:47 +0100
Steve Tadley wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...d-cameras.html ITYM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...era_sites.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:48:35 +0100, Rob Morley
said in 20081014164835.398b7690@bluemoon: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...era_sites.html And "Last Updated: 2:35AM GMT 06 Dec 2007" The sound you hear as you read the nuxxious emissions is that of barrels being scraped. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
Do thick people support cameras in stores and supermarkets to catch
shoplifters? -- Simon Mason http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:17:47 +0100 Steve Tadley wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...d-cameras.html ITYM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...era_sites.html Or even: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2712567/Speed-cameras-save-fewer-lives-than-claimed.html -- John |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
Steve Tadley wrote:
Nice choice of name, Tadley being a particularly unpleasant little town near Basingrad. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:48:35 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:17:47 +0100 Steve Tadley wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...d-cameras.html ITYM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...era_sites.html Oh look! One of the camera-loving URC regulars in neglects to mention RTTM shocker. Ties in pretty well with "camera supporters are either thick, uninformed or dishonest", doesn't it? So, which is it? Are you too thick to understand RTTM? Did you not know about it? Or did you know about and understand it, but deliberately ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to? I know which one my money's on. Ditto with "falls" in SIs not being mirrored by falls in hospital admissions, as the "falls" are wholly due to changes in what constitutes an "SI". There's a fairly short list of standard fallacies at least one of which is in almost every statistical statement praising cameras, and RTTM and the SI lie feature prominently in that list. Camera partnerships, Crapman and the rest know all about them, but "forget" about them time and time again when saying how "well" cameras have done. Now do you see why I have such a hard time believing that Crapman's intentions are good? If he *really* thought that cameras were doing so well, why would he feel the need to do that kind of thing? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:43:20 +0100, John wrote:
Rob Morley wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:17:47 +0100 Steve Tadley wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...d-cameras.html ITYM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...era_sites.html Or even: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2712567/Speed-cameras-save-fewer-lives-than-claimed.html That's you branded as a "troll" for life. If you make a statement against cameras, then it doesn't matter how true it is, you'll be ostracised from here with no further ado. That's how you know that this group is full of people with a wish to make the roads safer by whatever means is shown to be best, rather than people who have an emotive, non-safety-related reason for supporting cameras (which is immune to logic) and therefore won't hear a word against them. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:24:16 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:48:35 +0100, Rob Morley said in 20081014164835.398b7690@bluemoon: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...era_sites.html And "Last Updated: 2:35AM GMT 06 Dec 2007" The sound you hear as you read the nuxxious emissions is that of barrels being scraped. ROFL! Are you ****ing STUPID or what? I honestly wouldn't have thought it possible, but after reading your post above, you've gone even further down in my estimation. The really funny thing is that you make out that you're some kind of intellectual. You're more stupid than Peter Clinch. I cannot believe what an idiot you are. You've proven the subject line of this thread in a better way than I could possibly have imagined. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras"
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:31:47 +0100, "S Mason"
wrote: Do thick people support cameras in stores and supermarkets to catch shoplifters? Still on "speeders = shoplifters" are we? You know perfectly well that they're nothing like each other, and pretending otherwise just reflects badly on you. But since you ask, I wouldn't have thought that thick people were any more in favour of store CCTV than cleverer people (in fact it might be less). What's your point anyway (if there is one)? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Troll" Now Officially Means "Anti-Speed Camera Poster" | Administrator[_2_] | UK | 0 | October 2nd 08 12:09 PM |
Police: "New Speed Cameras Will Result In More Collisions" | Nuxx Bar | UK | 9 | July 9th 08 09:41 PM |
BBC Radio 4 Thursday 8pm - "The truth about speed cameras" | al Mossah | UK | 6 | April 19th 07 04:31 PM |
Does lower "rolling resistance" make a big difference? | rick H | UK | 27 | August 28th 06 11:04 AM |