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

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

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.

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

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 #

"SteveH" wrote


automated revenue cameras
--





You are at liberty to opt out...



--
Regards, Vince.

www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

Conor wrote:
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 suit what is needed to get
him on TV/Radio/in the papers.


I don't know about that one way or the other, because I pay little
attention to the figures. This is far from ideal but I so distrust the
statistics (wherever they come from) that I merely base my opinions on
my own observations of how things seem to be working and my own
instincts for what is right.

That's not very scientific, but it's all I can offer.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:
I don't know about that one way or the other, because I pay little
attention to the figures. This is far from ideal but I so distrust the
statistics (wherever they come from) that I merely base my opinions on
my own observations of how things seem to be working and my own
instincts for what is right.

That's not very scientific, but it's all I can offer.

*not at all scientific*, and probably the worst possible way of
learning about the world, especially things and events that are rare.

If they don't happen to you, you'll decide they never happen.
If they do, you'll think they happen more than they do.

One of the main benefits of civilization is that people can learn from
others' mistakes, and not just their own. The main benefit of
statistics is that they can be used to spot the difference between one
in a million and one in a thousand.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

In article , TripleS says...

I don't know about that one way or the other, because I pay little
attention to the figures. This is far from ideal but I so distrust the
statistics (wherever they come from) that I merely base my opinions on
my own observations of how things seem to be working and my own
instincts for what is right.

That's not very scientific, but it's all I can offer.

It's probably far more accurate as well.

--
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

Conor wrote:

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.

Such as?

--
(remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
Dryden