Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences etc), as following successful trials in London they are now being rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group) was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished* but did not reduce the number of offices. He also disputed figures from London that had shown congestion had been reduced by their introduction. He said the figures could be interpreted in different ways. Well Paul I disagree with your argument. I think that in the trail area they have made drivers think twice about stopping in box junctions, red-light running, illegal turns and driving in bus lanes. Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit further offences. Furthermore when I visited some friends in Muswell Hill (a number who had also received fines) they all admitted they had committed offences and said that they were all extra careful when driving around Haringey now as this council had put in a significant number of cameras in the area, and people were aware of the fines and being more careful. This is my opinion only, but in my experience offence cameras do make people think more carefully about their driving, and drive more carefully. I can't understand the argument that says this is not the case. Paul: Perhaps you can explain how the figures that show reduced congestion since the introduction of such cameras can be interpreted to not show reduced congestion. I have an open mind and am genuinely interested to understand. David |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .com,
David from Oz says... Well Paul I disagree with your argument. Situation Normal then. I have an open mind and am genuinely interested to understand. Unlike blinkered Paul. -- Conor I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you. Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up: http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David from Oz wrote:
There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences etc), as following successful trials in London they are now being rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group) was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished* but did not reduce the number of offices. Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a deterrent at all........ I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone blocking a box junction. -- Alex "I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away" www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Conor wrote:
In article .com, David from Oz says... Well Paul I disagree with your argument. Situation Normal then. I have an open mind and am genuinely interested to understand. Unlike blinkered Paul. I don't know about all the detail issues, but I think Paul's overall approach to road safety is a good and positive one. We tend to have our own pet ideas as to how we think things ought to work, so probably we could all be accused of being blinkered to some extent, and a bit biased now and again. Best wishes all, Dave. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
David from Oz wrote: There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences etc), as following successful trials in London they are now being rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group) was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished* but did not reduce the number of offices. Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a deterrent at all........ I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone blocking a box junction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...achine_gun.jpg would probably work. Bit messy though. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tosspot wrote:
Dr Zoidberg wrote: David from Oz wrote: There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences etc), as following successful trials in London they are now being rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group) was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished* but did not reduce the number of offices. Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a deterrent at all........ I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone blocking a box junction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...achine_gun.jpg would probably work. Bit messy though. Nice idea in theory , but the wreckage could end up blocking the junction for far longer than a three series.... -- Alex - posting using all 64 bits in widescreen :0) Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!" Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!" www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , TripleS says...
Conor wrote: In article .com, David from Oz says... Well Paul I disagree with your argument. Situation Normal then. I have an open mind and am genuinely interested to understand. Unlike blinkered Paul. I don't know about all the detail issues, but I think Paul's overall approach to road safety is a good and positive one. We tend to have our own pet ideas as to how we think things ought to work, so probably we could all be accused of being blinkered to some extent, and a bit biased now and again. My problem with Paul is that despite clear evidence to the contrary, he will fudge whatever figures he has to to suite what is needed to get him on TV/Radio/in the papers. -- Conor I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you. Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up: http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David from Oz wrote:
Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group) Paul hasn't posted on this group for a considerable period of time, not under his own name anyway. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David from Oz wrote:
rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group) Which group? Has he been using an alias? |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Conor wrote:
I don't know about all the detail issues, but I think Paul's overall approach to road safety is a good and positive one. We tend to have our own pet ideas as to how we think things ought to work, so probably we could all be accused of being blinkered to some extent, and a bit biased now and again. My problem with Paul is that despite clear evidence to the contrary, he will fudge whatever figures he has to to suite what is needed to get him on TV/Radio/in the papers. Unlike the government which consistently fudges figures to justify yet more automated revenue cameras? -- SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Being told of your offence | London Transport | |||
Being told of your offence | London Transport | |||
Being told of your offence | London Transport | |||
Good Luck, Paul Corfield | London Transport | |||
No platform adverts at St Paul's | London Transport |