Tangler - your memory is very short. Long ago I started the debate saying I thought that speed cameras had a part to play in road safety at PARTICULARLY high risk spots. Unfortunately, they (like speed humps, pinch points, mini roundabouts, 20 limits and much else in their day) have become seen as a universal panacea for all ills - almost a fashion assessory in some villages.
Unfortunately, though all of them may have their uses, they are very limited and need to be applied to address a very specific need.
My own village is a case in point. �175000 points (�1000 for every man woman and child) was spent on pinch points which a) Weren't necessary b) Don't actually work (they cause people to carry on at undiminished speed on the wrong side of the road). c) One was moved at a cost of �8000 to a place where it CAUSES accidents - and the village can't AFFORD to move it again to somewhere it will be safe, because the highways authority won't do it again
Is it really all right to waste public money - yours (it wasn't villagers money) in that way?
That is what Dan and I are about. We want a BALANCED approach to road safety. To spend money on things that work, not things that satisfy someones fixation.
Now answer the simple question which I keep posing... DO YOU BELIEVE that in 87% of fatal accidents and 5% of all accidents NO-ONE was speeding? Then tell me what percentage of the population are speeding at any given instant.
I keep asking but it's seems to me to a question that neither you nor itpro, nor vic are prepared to answer - preferring to suggest we are guilty of something akin to incest. Intellectual dishonesty? I suspect so.
Let me put it to you another way. Is it more reprehensible to ignore 13% of accidents (which I don't, and can actually prove) or to ignore 87% - which itpro gleefully claims he is leaving to others? And you seem to claim are too difficult to address.
Don't you think you should get off your high horse?
|
|