"After many years of use, we can not show that they do reduce accidents."
Oh...... I see.... the REASON why road deaths have DROPPED to their LOWEST LEVEL in the UK is becasue of ..... what......?
Fairy Dust?
I suppose you'd claim THE reduction was coincidence.....?
ALL the figures show that where the cameras are in force, deaths REDUCE! Most striking, where the AVERAGE speed cameras are in force (i.e., over long distances) the reductions in deaths and serious injuries (KSI) is the LARGEST.
For example.... the part of the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge used to have Gatsos.... they were replaced with Specs (Average speed cameras). When the Gatsos were first installed, they reduced the deaths by approx 30% and they CONTINUED to keep those deaths lower for the ENTIRE tim they were in use. However, when they were replaced by Specs, the KSI rate dropped by a FURTHER EIGHTY THREE PERCENT IN THE FIRST YEAR ALONE!
Now tell me EXACTLY why that isn't PROOF that they worked on THAT SPECIFIC ROAD!
*************
And, if you object to speed cameras becasue they are 'unfair' (note the word YOU used 'BECAUSE'), then I trust that you will ALSO object to the breathalyser because it is EXACTLY EQUALLY UNFAIR! It is used on a purely ARBITRARY basis in EXACTLY the same way that SPEED is set in an ARBITRARY way.
If you object to speed cameras 'BECAUSE' they are unfair, you have NO ALTERNATIVE but to object to BRETHALYSERS too...... just like the IMBECILES of the 1970s did!
Let's hear you object to THOSE too.....
We all KNOW the truth.... you don't object to cameras being 'unfair': you object because they stop YOU SPEEDING as often as you'd like!
Ian
|
|