Nuxx:608d8051-41f9-480b-b145-37f6d203765f@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <608d8051-41f9-480b-b145-37f6d203765f@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Speed Limits: How Low Is Too Low? Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:42:37 -0700 (PDT) References: <43fcb0d5-3e7e-4ae6-b073-ca62ea02d09f@s39g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <66gk00F2kjc5mU1@mid.individual.net> <9j7604538ifpr9r9bo28osho7huc58e7cp@4ax.com> <66gockF2jr9geU1@mid.individual.net>  <66h09hF2jfk4eU1@mid.individual.net>  <66hkb7F2k844dU1@mid.individual.net> <9jf704d7jg0aojndtbsus8fs297ft879gp@4ax.com> <66i4emF2kc29oU1@mid.individual.net>  <66jis4F2k2adhU1@mid.individual.net>    Lines: 72 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.150.187 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1208295757 16333 127.0.0.1 (15 Apr 2008 21:42:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.150.187; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5) Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5899 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:647392

> > A spokesman said: "It is essential we trial measures that could be > > used to enforce speed limits and reduce road accidents. At sites where > > speed cameras have been used there has been a 53 per cent reduction in > > the number of people killed or seriously injured."

There they go deliberately ignoring RTTM YET AGAIN. Why do the trolls simply stand by and accept this BLATANT FRAUD? Why would camera proponents in the media need to commit this fraud if cameras really were working so well? Even Crapman grudgingly admits that RTTM is a factor, yet he happily accepts it when this fraud happens, and it happens ALL THE TIME. Why would the trolls not point this out and take issue with it, unless they didn't care because they liked cameras for some reason other than their supposed ability to reduce casualties?

It's perfectly simple. If you were aware of RTTM, and you liked cameras purely (or even mainly) because you thought they saved lives, then you would be very keen for SCPs and the like to take account of RTTM and other statistical errors, so that you could be sure that cameras really were saving lives. If SCPs LIED and omitted the likes of RTTM, you would feel cheated, and like they were taking advantage of you; you would take issue with it, and seek to stop them doing it, so that it was obvious to everyone whether cameras really were working. Someone would only accept, and even support, this fraudulent exaggeration of the benefits of cameras if they didn't care whether they were saving lives or not, and they liked cameras for some other reason (say, ooh, I don't know, a pathetic hatred of motorists...just a stab in the dark there).

The trolls can make out (wrongly as it happens) that "RTTM isn't that important", but what is undeniable is that it exists, and that the SCPs are deceiving us when they pretend that it doesn't, and that is the main point here. They are playing with people's lives by lying to us, and both they and those who support them in the full knowledge of what they are doing therefore have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

Are the trolls going to denounce this fraudulent and constant non- allowance for RTTM by the SCPs? Are the trolls going to denounce the fact that SCPs have claimed a reduction in SIs when (as they know) this is purely down to a change in the way that SIs have been reported (as shown by hospital admissions)? Are the trolls going to denounce each and every one of the different types of statistical fraud which are intended to exaggerate the safety benefits of cameras, each and every time one of them is committed? If not, it's even clearer to me than it was before: the trolls like cameras because they make life difficult for motorists, and they couldn't care less if they were saving lives or not.

> It won't make any difference to that casualty rate.

Of course it won't (except possibly in the wrong direction). And I don't think you, me, or anyone (even the scheme's supporters) will be the slightest bit surprised. How sad that we have got to the stage where road "safety" measures aren't seriously expected to improve things at all. It's time for proper road safety measures where saving lives, rather than persecuting motorists, is the main priority, and it's time for the authorities to stop lying to us (see above).

> Not that it affects me personally, but I hope Boris gets in and bins the whole > scheme.

Same. There's been more than enough of this sort of nonsense already. No-one has ever come up with remotely convincing evidence that measures like these save lives. It's all based on pure assumption. "Slower is safer, of course it is." If only it were that simple. It's all the wrong way round: proponents of unproven measures like these should show that they will work, rather than expecting their opponents to show that they won't.

I pity those who really believe that such measures save lives, and I utterly detest those who pretend to believe it for their own benefit. They're scum.