Nuxx:6ca978d4-cd6e-4597-b53f-dcfb33f9bf33@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6ca978d4-cd6e-4597-b53f-dcfb33f9bf33@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Labyrinthine paranoia Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT) References:   <6fbgldFanc9cU1@mid.individual.net>       Lines: 37 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217538520 9797 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2008 21:08:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3392 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:659993

On Jul 31, 2:39=A0pm, Jeff York  wrote: > "budstaff"  wrote: > > >"Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > >news:c5cd4823-2e9d-4234-89a9-c91503cb253f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com..= . > >On Jul 30, 7:53 pm, David Hansen  > >wrote: > >> On 30 Jul 2008 17:45:39 +0100 (BST) someone who may be David > >> Damerell  wrote this:- > > >>Just think of all the innocent road users who are dying because of > >>cameras. =A0Should you be trying to be funny and clever, or should you > >>be utterly ashamed? > > >Peer-reviewed citation please. If none available, then you _should_ be > >utterly ashamed (no need for any of your poncey rhetoric, methinks) > > I don't know whether the Transport Research Laboratory's reports are > peer-reviewed, but as they are generally taken to be authoritative I > suggest that you examine TRL 595. It studied camera use on motorways > and in summary concluded that roadworks with fixed speed cameras > experienced a 55% increase in injury accidents. Fixed cameras on open > motorways increased injury accidents by 31% and in general, fatal and > serious crashes were 32% more likely where speed cameras were being > operated. Whereas conventional police patrols reduced accidents at > roadworks by 27%, and 10% elsewhere. > > So, the OP has a point.

Very well said, and completely correct. Brave of you as well, considering that there are those on this newsgroup who don't like such facts being disseminated, and who tend to launch smear campaigns against anyone who does the disseminating. (Censorship and intimidation, of course, are two of the pillars of the anti-motorist campaign run by Spindrift, Chapman and their handful of extremist followers.)