Nuxx:21bc9ef7-03e3-4838-a100-4f2336fc5d9b@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <21bc9ef7-03e3-4838-a100-4f2336fc5d9b@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: "Utterly Horrible Corrosive People"? It's Like "The Princess and the Pea" Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:29:36 -0800 (PST) References:  <0fb56c29-2cca-4ddd-9013-9a29cda0b6d8@s41g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>   <3069ae5a-8f17-4e96-8707-457059bd648e@k7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>    Lines: 42 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297344577 19041 127.0.0.1 (10 Feb 2011 13:29:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3546 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37243

On Feb 10, 12:54=A0pm, "Simon Mason"  wrote: > "Geoff Berrow"  wrote in message > > news:tbn7l6l52iu3hk974l7kcu75586gqci2r3@4ax.com... > > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:50:48 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > >  wrote: > > >>And just for the sake of absolute clarity I have done the research and > >>concluded (along with every other reliable source I can find) that > >>cameras absolutely *do not* cost lives, they are at worst neutral and > >>there is compelling evidence that reducing speeds reduces the frequency > >>and severity of crashes. > > > I found it interesting to note that with cameras costing between 20 > > and 40K to install, they have not yet paid for themselves, and with > > considerable ongoing costs seem unlikely to do so. > > > No wonder they are falling out of favour. > > Not around here they ain't! > > http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Saving-42-lives-year/ar...

Do you know about regression to the mean? Camera partnerships certainly do, and it's not the first time by a long chalk that one has willfully ignored it so that they can fraudulently claim that their cameras are saving more lives than they really are. The "at camera sites" phrase almost invariably means that they're doing this. Just one more way in which they con the public, including you apparently.

It's a disgrace that someone can be so dishonest about something that's literally life and death, just for the sake of vested interests.

Even you-know-who admits that regression to the mean exists, yet he seems strangely untroubled by partnerships' deliberate and near- universal failure to take it into account when saying how their cameras have performed. Almost like he's happy to go along with the con because he cares more about persecuting motorists than saving lives.