Oxons speed cameras back on.

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...-camera-switch

--
Simon Mason

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...-camera-switch



Usual ****e from Simple.

There were actually two more accidents, in the six months since the cameras were switched off, at
the site of the fixed cameras: 62 rather than 60. So yep - turning off the cameras had a great
effect.


In the meantime people in Oxfordshire started driving at much higher speeds all over the county as a
direct result of the cameras being switch off.


Yes of course they did.


Remind us - why do people call you Simple?
--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

On Apr 1, 8:10*am, Simon Mason wrote:
Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...xfordshire-roa...

--
Simon Mason

I bet you love the thought of more motorists being fined and possibly
losing their licences and livelihoods for a bit of perfectly harmless
speeding don't you Simon, just to spite them. I'm hoping it's just an
April fool's joke.

On Apr 1, 1:06*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:10*am, Simon Mason wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...xfordshire-roa...

--
Simon Mason

I bet you love the thought of more motorists being fined and possibly
losing their licences and livelihoods for a bit of perfectly harmless
speeding don't you Simon, just to spite them. I'm hoping it's just an
April fool's joke.

"Harmless" like hydrogen is perhaps?

I have a foolproof method of keeping points off my licence and it
involves not breaking the law.

It seems to work well - I can't see why some drivers find that concept
so hard to grasp.

--
Simon Mason

On Apr 1, 1:44*pm, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:06*pm, Derek C wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:10*am, Simon Mason wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...xfordshire-roa....

--
Simon Mason

I bet you love the thought of more motorists being fined and possibly
losing their licences and livelihoods for a bit of perfectly harmless
speeding don't you Simon, just to spite them. I'm hoping it's just an
April fool's joke.

"Harmless" like hydrogen is perhaps?

I have a foolproof method of keeping points off my licence and it
involves not breaking the law.

It seems to work well - I can't see why some drivers find that concept
so hard to grasp.


Because some (not all) speed limits are ridiculously low and speed
cameras are always located in positions where they are most likely to
catch motorists speeding on a perfectly wide, safe bit of road, rather
than where excessive speed is actually dangerous. Of course cyclists
don't have licences or number plates, so they can't get any penalty
points, however dangerously they cycle!

Judith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...-camera-switch



Usual ****e from Simple.

There were actually two more accidents, in the six months since the cameras were switched off, at
the site of the fixed cameras: 62 rather than 60. So yep - turning off the cameras had a great
effect.

So your explanation for the deaths is... ?

BugBear

On Apr 1, 1:56*pm, bugbear wrote:
Judith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon *wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...xfordshire-roa....

Usual ****e from Simple.

There were actually two more accidents, in the six months since the cameras were switched off, *at
the site of the fixed cameras: *62 rather than 60. *So yep - turning off the cameras had a great
effect.

So your explanation for the deaths is... ?

* *BugBear-

Random statistical variation!

On Apr 1, 1:54*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:44*pm, Simon Mason wrote:





On Apr 1, 1:06*pm, Derek C wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:10*am, Simon Mason wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...xfordshire-roa...

--
Simon Mason

I bet you love the thought of more motorists being fined and possibly
losing their licences and livelihoods for a bit of perfectly harmless
speeding don't you Simon, just to spite them. I'm hoping it's just an
April fool's joke.

"Harmless" like hydrogen is perhaps?

I have a foolproof method of keeping points off my licence and it
involves not breaking the law.

It seems to work well - I can't see why some drivers find that concept
so hard to grasp.

Because some (not all) speed limits are ridiculously low and speed
cameras are always located in positions where they are most likely to
catch motorists speeding on a perfectly wide, safe bit of road, rather
than where excessive speed is actually dangerous.

So their notoriously fiendish sites are widely known and drivers
*still* get caught?
More fool them.

Of course cyclists
don't have licences or number plates, so they can't get any penalty
points, however dangerously they cycle!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course, cyclists are not subject to speed limits and so even if
they did have a licence, they wouldn't get any points anyway.

--
Simon Mason

On Apr 1, 2:13*pm, Simon Mason wrote:

Of course, cyclists are not subject to speed limits and so even if
they did have a licence, they wouldn't get any points anyway.


I would hope that they would for red light jumping, riding on
footpaths, no lights at night, and all the other offences that
cyclists regularly commit!

On Apr 1, 2:21*pm, Derek C wrote:
On Apr 1, 2:13*pm, Simon Mason wrote:



Of course, cyclists are not subject to speed limits and so even if
they did have a licence, they wouldn't get any points anyway.

I would hope that they would for red light jumping, riding on
footpaths, no lights at night, and all the other offences that
cyclists regularly commit!

According to Cheerless, a local crackdown has been a resounding
success and there aren't any law breaking cyclist left.

--
Simon Mason