Traffic Offfences - stop blaming cyclists

On 24/11/2010 08:16, Squashme wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:58 pm, Matt wrote:
On 23/11/2010 22:35, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/11/2010 08:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cars and speeding are a tremendous cash cow

Um, no. When councils were told to cut spending, cameras were axed. If
they were revenue raisers, as you claim, this would not have happened.

Um, no.

When the cash raised by the cameras was all given back to the councils
they couldn't put them up quickly enough.

Now the cash raised is no longer all given back to the councils, but
retained by the government for other purposes, they can't turn them off
quickly enough.

What else has changed to make them less desirable to the councils /if/
they were installed for road safety purposes and not for the revenue
that they got back from them?

Was Paul Smith was right all along?

Many libraries are to be closed over the next few years. Were they
revenue-raisers?

You miss the point. Speed cameras were supposedly put in to reduce
casualties. Funny then that when they become unprofitable for the
councils to operate, because the government have stopped handing over
the fine money to them, that they are turned off. Will the same
councils also be turning off their entire installed base of other "road
safety" equipment such as belisha beacons, pelican crossing lights, etc.
- or do they believe that they have some other benefit other than cash
raising?

--
Matt B

"Matt B" wrote in message
...
On 23/11/2010 22:35, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/11/2010 08:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cars and speeding are a tremendous cash cow

Um, no. When councils were told to cut spending, cameras were axed. If
they were revenue raisers, as you claim, this would not have happened.

Um, no.

When the cash raised by the cameras was all given back to the councils
they couldn't put them up quickly enough.

Now the cash raised is no longer all given back to the councils, but
retained by the government for other purposes, they can't turn them off
quickly enough.

What else has changed to make them less desirable to the councils /if/
they were installed for road safety purposes and not for the revenue that
they got back from them?

Was Paul Smith was right all along?

Paul Smith was spot on.

On Nov 24, 10:04*am, "Mr. Benn" wrote:
"Matt B" wrote in message

...





On 23/11/2010 22:35, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/11/2010 08:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cars and speeding are a tremendous cash cow

Um, no. When councils were told to cut spending, cameras were axed. If
they were revenue raisers, as you claim, this would not have happened.

Um, no.

When the cash raised by the cameras was all given back to the councils
they couldn't put them up quickly enough.

Now the cash raised is no longer all given back to the councils, but
retained by the government for other purposes, they can't turn them off
quickly enough.

What else has changed to make them less desirable to the councils /if/
they were installed for road safety purposes and not for the revenue that
they got back from them?

Was Paul Smith was right all along?

Paul Smith was spot on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Too right he was. ****wits on here couldn't wait on dance on his grave

Matt B wrote:

You miss the point. Speed cameras were supposedly put in to reduce
casualties. Funny then that when they become unprofitable for the
councils to operate, because the government have stopped handing over
the fine money to them, that they are turned off. Will the same
councils also be turning off their entire installed base of other
"road safety" equipment such as belisha beacons, pelican crossing
lights, etc. - or do they believe that they have some other benefit
other than cash raising?

You've missed the point. Oxford are switching theirs back on now & I
suspect others will be following.

--
Tony

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/11/2010 09:50, Matt B wrote:
You miss the point. Speed cameras were supposedly put in to reduce
casualties.

Correct. And measured against that, they work. Measured as a
revenue-raiser, which the speedophiles have always asserted was the real
covert reason, they clearly fail.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM7YoKAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/oFIIAIhatHAmiLWp6ZA65jlNzmpz
K4nvkGZ4np4CgoaYv9feQ5QonOvByqsaXe4Hz6oR1bqbd7QOKA 344Veq5w+tz89E
PCPUfUCcoh17Vw5LUXtxYcRrJKT6ktMGqZBUbukdHUq+Ci+FPe bmi6hRP+rySEMd
BXJvu5O7KSqI2PTp9/++RXQkyOdoNJnzESFr4ZC9NReqC6pLYowqZf9y+1PXNgG7
Wbla5TMG8WmhoqkUpxUeWtf83dr+OQgUMyEs7pQz2hiJ4HYzMk o+Hr7IobX/qRMo
OjTX/jhe8jX+0gurEFRjQAlX3FihRcGWyu7P4MMUc0cIuicEN6o73NE XIkClOqU=
=YPH8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 24/11/2010 21:56, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 24/11/2010 09:50, Matt B wrote:
You miss the point. Speed cameras were supposedly put in to reduce
casualties.

Correct. And measured against that, they work.

Even if the coincidental drop in accidents locally to places where they
were installed (which had to have already had an unusually high accident
rate for a year or two to qualify to have them installed) may lead some
to believe that they do "work", they certainly haven't had a dramatic
effect at the population level - there hasn't been any noticable
significant casualty drop during the golden age of cameras - quite the
opposite if you look at the HES rather than STATS19 data over the last
10 years or so.

Measured as a
revenue-raiser, which the speedophiles have always asserted was the real
covert reason, they clearly fail.

More than GBP100 million per year to the treasury is a failure? The
fact that it isn't handed over to councils doesn't mean it isn't raised.

--
Matt B

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/11/2010 22:41, Matt B wrote:
On 24/11/2010 21:56, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 24/11/2010 09:50, Matt B wrote:
You miss the point. Speed cameras were supposedly put in to reduce
casualties.

Correct. And measured against that, they work.

Even if the coincidental drop in accidents locally to places where they
were installed (which had to have already had an unusually high accident
rate for a year or two to qualify to have them installed) may lead some
to believe that they do "work", they certainly haven't had a dramatic
effect at the population level - there hasn't been any noticable
significant casualty drop during the golden age of cameras - quite the
opposite if you look at the HES rather than STATS19 data over the last
10 years or so.

Argument by assertion. Road fatality trends have continued to fall and
roads are far less likely to be peopled by speed freaks, making my
preferred method of transport generally much more pleasant.

Drivers made all the same noises about evidential breath testing. Some
still do.

Measured as a
revenue-raiser, which the speedophiles have always asserted was the real
covert reason, they clearly fail.

More than GBP100 million per year to the treasury is a failure? The
fact that it isn't handed over to councils doesn't mean it isn't raised.

Now explain how cutting them can be a cost-saving measure. Focus
especially omn the word "saving".


- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM7ZcQAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/A20H/1hieZVIInbzFcE7jLgzbdeN
ulfCD7vvAr83Y6fP5mkHEK356ykgReiY/JQyeoOs66reCandt9r4kPck3A+BF+ZI
8wfMu7dmgc0LzLpSK2zJDVWUUbUxC4IlALf3mzaxK5YgAugCpn RbEkCBp6ljIJp5
NlX5jmVZQ0TAFthGinMi/cbhc/TTzV4i9/d7LqchQExNYKl87CjzMQRl6ubSUis2
g4gaXyZJ9jTd9f2asJZQfijG/nhu0bYbFZlWLu16l9iPf34zPzeJm0r93OhHG17Y
lYM8i9LEv4dqI+KsOrRrKcHhuqrb3zRzz32tli8k6NU/i03TqKzGdRp+NSjmSKU=
=PnbQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 24/11/2010 22:52, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 24/11/2010 22:41, Matt B wrote:
On 24/11/2010 21:56, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 24/11/2010 09:50, Matt B wrote:
You miss the point. Speed cameras were supposedly put in to reduce
casualties.

Correct. And measured against that, they work.

Even if the coincidental drop in accidents locally to places where they
were installed (which had to have already had an unusually high accident
rate for a year or two to qualify to have them installed) may lead some
to believe that they do "work", they certainly haven't had a dramatic
effect at the population level - there hasn't been any noticable
significant casualty drop during the golden age of cameras - quite the
opposite if you look at the HES rather than STATS19 data over the last
10 years or so.

Argument by assertion.

Yours, yes.

Road fatality trends have continued to fall

Another of your assertions - or can you cite evidence (STATS19 derived
data will not be accepted as it has been shown to be unreliable for
serious injury data)?

Measured as a
revenue-raiser, which the speedophiles have always asserted was the real
covert reason, they clearly fail.

More than GBP100 million per year to the treasury is a failure? The
fact that it isn't handed over to councils doesn't mean it isn't raised.

Now explain how cutting them can be a cost-saving measure. Focus
especially omn the word "saving".

Does the explanation for that still elude you?

1. The councils run the cameras at their own expense.
2. The government makes GBP100 million pounds per year in fine revenue,
but gives less of it to the councils than the cost of running the cameras.
3. The councils see no advantage in running cameras if the government
don't pass on the huge revenues, so switch them off. Obviously the
saving due to less accidents isn't significant enough for them to bother.

--
Matt B

On 24/11/2010 22:52, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


my preferred method of transport [is] generally much more pleasant.

And that's all that matters, isn't it?

On Nov 24, 11:04*pm, Matt B wrote:
On 24/11/2010 22:52, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:



On 24/11/2010 22:41, Matt B wrote:
On 24/11/2010 21:56, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 24/11/2010 09:50, Matt B wrote:
You miss the point. *Speed cameras were supposedly put in to reduce
casualties.

Correct. And measured against that, they work.

Even if the coincidental drop in accidents locally to places where they
were installed (which had to have already had an unusually high accident
rate for a year or two to qualify to have them installed) may lead some
to believe that they do "work", they certainly haven't had a dramatic
effect at the population level - there hasn't been any noticable
significant casualty drop during the golden age of cameras - quite the
opposite if you look at the HES rather than STATS19 data over the last
10 years or so.

Argument by assertion.

Yours, yes.

Road fatality trends have continued to fall

Another of your assertions - or can you cite evidence (STATS19 derived
data will not be accepted as it has been shown to be unreliable for
serious injury data)?

Measured as a
revenue-raiser, which the speedophiles have always asserted was the real
covert reason, they clearly fail.

More than GBP100 million per year to the treasury is a failure? *The
fact that it isn't handed over to councils doesn't mean it isn't raised.

Now explain how cutting them can be a cost-saving measure. Focus
especially omn the word "saving".

Does the explanation for that still elude you?

1. The councils run the cameras at their own expense.
2. The government makes GBP100 million pounds per year in fine revenue,
but gives less of it to the councils than the cost of running the cameras..
3. The councils see no advantage in running cameras if the government
don't pass on the huge revenues, so switch them off. *Obviously the
saving due to less accidents isn't significant enough for them to bother.


What financial savings would a local council make from having less
accidents?