Nuxx:E957361a-97a5-4604-af6e-8f2468f95e14@m15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Any Actual Collisions which Could have Been Prevented by a Camera? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:22:09 -0800 (PST) Lines: 70 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.151.152.140 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231716130 5528 127.0.0.1 (11 Jan 2009 23:22:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.151.152.140; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5574 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:682743

If you can describe an instance of an *actual* collision where it could genuinely and reasonably be claimed that a speed camera could have prevented the collision (i.e. you can actually explain the mechanism of how the presence of a camera would have stopped the collision from taking place), please do so here. Perhaps you would also like to advise camera partnerships, BRAKE, PACTS, and DfT of this collision, since none of those organisations were able to identify such a collison, despite supporting cameras. (Does the fact that they couldn't identify such a collision suggest to you that those organisations have made an honest and open-minded assessment of cameras' safety benefits, or is it more likely that they support cameras due to some vested interest or other? Why is it that where there is camera support, there always seem to be vested interests, dishonesty, ignorance and universally-despised trolls like Chapman and Spindrift as well?)

If you're thinking of making up a collision which never actually happened, ask yourself whether it's really worth supporting cameras if this entails telling silly lies. Isn't it time to accept that cameras have no safety benefit in the real world, and that you've been taken in? There's no shame in it; the authorities have invested a lot of time and money in persuading people that cameras work, and some clever people have been duped (although IQ has always had a negative correlation with camera support). However, there is a *lot* of shame in knowing that cameras don't work, but pretending that they do; someone who does that is barely better than the motorist-hating trolls. We're talking about people's LIVES here, and they're more important than anyone's precious pride. Please bite the bullet, accept once and for all that cameras are a failure, and move on. You'll have to do so sooner or later, because the truth isn't going to change, and it'll only get harder: if you don't like the thought of admitting that you've been wrong for the last 15 years, how are you going to like admitting in the future that you've been wrong for the last 20/25/30+ years? So even if you're utterly selfish and you couldn't care less about saving the lives of road users, you should still admit that you've been wrong about cameras for your own benefit.

If you cannot identify such a collision, but you still support speed cameras because you hate motorists, and you don't like people coming on here and exposing the fact that speed cameras actually have no safety benefit, you could always demonstrate that by trolling in this thread. Or you could stop prioritising giving motorists a hard time over saving lives and apologise for having done so. It's never too late to start atoning for being a complete bastard. Unless of course you're someone like Chapman; it's just as well that the fairy tales about "God" that he subscribes to aren't true, otherwise he would be due to spend an eternity in Hell, no matter what he did with the rest of his life. The number of deaths that he's been responsible for is simply too many to ever make up for. No wonder he's such a complete tosser towards so many people...he knows he can't make things any worse.

So, no-one can identify any collisions which a camera could have been prevented (beyond possibly some vague crap like "So-and-so was going too fast and therefore a camera would have stopped the collision")? Quelle surprise. Camera supporters are oh so predictable, and they never so much as begin to try to show *how* cameras are supposed to make the roads safer. The whole damn thing is based on some uselessly vague bollocks about how "slower is safer", and no attempt is ever made to expand on that. Why is no attempt ever made? Because those who support cameras know, subconsciously or otherwise, that any such attempts will only ever show that cameras don't actually help one iota, and if anything, they make things worse. No-one has ever demonstrated how a camera is supposed to prevent a collision, yet the country is covered with the infernal devices. It's absolutely outrageous, and it shows what a dire state our road "safety" policy is in, thanks to those interfering loonies who are determined to force socialism on us all by any means necessary, even if it means killing a few thousand road users along the way. Disgusting, blood on hands, etc.