Unsung Benefits of Speed Cameras

Now that speed cameras are under threat throughout the country, I think
it's time that those of us who support cameras changed our strategy, as
otherwise we are in serious danger of losing cameras permanently.

Until now, the main "battle cry" in supporting cameras has been that
they save lives; that they directly reduce deaths and serious injuries
by forcing people to slow down. Now to be honest, I'm not sure if
that's the case; in fact, I'm fairly sure that it isn't.

But that's not to say that cameras have no use. I think they are
incredibly good at encouraging modal shift: if even the most decent,
law-abiding drivers feel that their licences are threatened by speed
cameras, then that's a pretty major incentive for them (and all other
drivers) to take a legitimate, unselfish form of transport instead of
the car. To me, this has incalculable benefits: fewer cars on the roads
means fewer KSIs, less damage to the environment and much more pleasant
surroundings for everyone.

For a long time, the "Speed cameras save lives by slowing people down"
claim has been sufficient to justify cameras, despite not necessarily
being true. However, in the face of unforgiveable cuts from this
dreadful Coalition government (let's hope Labour get back in soon), this
no longer appears to be the case. Therefore we need to move quickly to
convince the authorities to keep cameras in any way that we possibly
can. I believe that the best way of doing this is to come clean about
our real reasons for supporting cameras: they may not actually have any
direct safety benefits, and they may even cause a few road accidents by
distracting drivers from factors more important than their speed, but
they are better than anything else when it comes to forcing people to
stop using cars, and isn't that what we all want?

Long live cameras, and I very much hope we can keep them until the only
motorists left on the roads are those who have a genuine reason to use
their cars (i.e. about 0.01% of the drivers that we currently have).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are
guaranteed to be worth the price paid.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Now that speed cameras are under threat throughout the country, I think
it's time that those of us who support cameras changed our strategy, as
otherwise we are in serious danger of losing cameras permanently.

Until now, the main "battle cry" in supporting cameras has been that
they save lives; that they directly reduce deaths and serious injuries
by forcing people to slow down. Now to be honest, I'm not sure if
that's the case; in fact, I'm fairly sure that it isn't.

But that's not to say that cameras have no use. I think they are
incredibly good at encouraging modal shift: if even the most decent,
law-abiding drivers feel that their licences are threatened by speed
cameras, then that's a pretty major incentive for them (and all other
drivers) to take a legitimate, unselfish form of transport instead of
the car. To me, this has incalculable benefits: fewer cars on the roads
means fewer KSIs, less damage to the environment and much more pleasant
surroundings for everyone.

For a long time, the "Speed cameras save lives by slowing people down"
claim has been sufficient to justify cameras, despite not necessarily
being true. However, in the face of unforgiveable cuts from this
dreadful Coalition government (let's hope Labour get back in soon), this
no longer appears to be the case. Therefore we need to move quickly to
convince the authorities to keep cameras in any way that we possibly
can. I believe that the best way of doing this is to come clean about
our real reasons for supporting cameras: they may not actually have any
direct safety benefits, and they may even cause a few road accidents by
distracting drivers from factors more important than their speed, but
they are better than anything else when it comes to forcing people to
stop using cars, and isn't that what we all want?

Long live cameras, and I very much hope we can keep them until the only
motorists left on the roads are those who have a genuine reason to use
their cars (i.e. about 0.01% of the drivers that we currently have).

Guy



With respect, I think you are in dreamland if you think that cameras put
people off of driving cars and onto other forms of transport.

Bod

On 29 Sep, 14:51, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
Now that speed cameras are under threat throughout the country, I think
it's time that those of us who support cameras changed our strategy, as
otherwise we are in serious danger of losing cameras permanently.

Until now, the main "battle cry" in supporting cameras has been that
they save lives; that they directly reduce deaths and serious injuries
by forcing people to slow down. *Now to be honest, I'm not sure if
that's the case; in fact, I'm fairly sure that it isn't.

But that's not to say that cameras have no use. *I think they are
incredibly good at encouraging modal shift: if even the most decent,
law-abiding drivers feel that their licences are threatened by speed
cameras, then that's a pretty major incentive for them (and all other
drivers) to take a legitimate, unselfish form of transport instead of
the car. *To me, this has incalculable benefits: fewer cars on the roads
means fewer KSIs, less damage to the environment and much more pleasant
surroundings for everyone.

For a long time, the "Speed cameras save lives by slowing people down"
claim has been sufficient to justify cameras, despite not necessarily
being true. *However, in the face of unforgiveable cuts from this
dreadful Coalition government (let's hope Labour get back in soon), this
no longer appears to be the case. *Therefore we need to move quickly to
convince the authorities to keep cameras in any way that we possibly
can. *I believe that the best way of doing this is to come clean about
our real reasons for supporting cameras: they may not actually have any
direct safety benefits, and they may even cause a few road accidents by
distracting drivers from factors more important than their speed, but
they are better than anything else when it comes to forcing people to
stop using cars, and isn't that what we all want?

Long live cameras, and I very much hope we can keep them until the only
motorists left on the roads are those who have a genuine reason to use
their cars (i.e. about 0.01% of the drivers that we currently have).

Guy
--http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are
guaranteed to be worth the price paid.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it.

I suspect that everone else may not be quite so charitable.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
m...
legitimate, unselfish form of transport instead of
the car.

What makes a car illegitimate?
Or selfish, for that matter?

Long live cameras, and I very much hope we can keep them until the only
motorists left on the roads are those who have a genuine reason to use
their cars (i.e. about 0.01% of the drivers that we currently have).

How do you define a genuine reason?

In fact, are you duhg in disguise?
--
Alex

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
.... using a different browser from usual, via a different USENET host from usual.

I wonder what could be going on?

BugBear

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:51:49 +0100
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
But that's not to say that cameras have no use. I think they are
incredibly good at encouraging modal shift: if even the most decent,

Dream on.

dreadful Coalition government (let's hope Labour get back in soon), this

So they can finish the job of screwing up the economy? Lets not.

B2003

Nuxx Bar wrote:
Long live cameras, and I very much hope we can keep them until the only
motorists left on the roads are those who have a genuine reason to use
their cars (i.e. about 0.01% of the drivers that we currently have).

Please **** off and die, Nuxxy.

In article ,
says...

Nuxx Bar wrote:
Long live cameras, and I very much hope we can keep them until the only
motorists left on the roads are those who have a genuine reason to use
their cars (i.e. about 0.01% of the drivers that we currently have).

Please **** off and die, Nuxxy.

Sorry, I now retract that as I shouldn't have said it. It is not the
kind of conduct that one is entitled to expect from a URCM moderator,
and anyway, I was wrong about the OP being Nuxxy.

I agree with the opinions expressed in the OP, as all URCM moderators
do, and anyone who doesn't also agree with those opinions will be
censored and bullied in URCM (since we know deep down that they're
right, and we don't like it one little bit, hence the need to stop them
from making their points before they make them, since there's no way to
win the argument with them...unfortunately the truth has an annoying way
of coming out).

Suppressing inconvenient truths is the only way to go, and that's what
URCM is for. Those who are with us rather than against us are welcome
to join our private club at any time.

In article ,
Alan Braggins wrote:
[something]

For the avoidance of doubt, this is a forgery too. (NB that I have my
killfile set up in a way that means I won't see replies to this
message.)

Ian (with chiark administrator hat on, amongst other things).

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
m...


Guy has never quadruple posted before - you'll have to do better than that
if you want to assume another person's identity.

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