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".

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

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

Do thick people support cameras in stores and supermarkets to catch
shoplifters?


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

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

Steve Tadley wrote:

Nice choice of name, Tadley being a particularly unpleasant little town
near Basingrad.

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?

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.

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.

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)?