Classic!
Just seen this over at the Beeb!
At
re: Lowered Speed trial Extended. George Painter-Levi 501st - - 250th post - 20 Jun 2005 20:08
robert wrote:
>> Try this one for size Bogush. Have a look here:-
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4446011.stm
Give us a break robert:
I'm not made of money!
I know I said I'd give you a fiver every time you pretended to be anti-motorist and I scored against you:
But you're supposed to pretend to be anti-motorist and put up the strongest show they could have:
Not leave me an open goal !
.
Posting a link to a Beeb page where the Beeb is just posting a Press Release from the limit lowerers where they claim an unspecified improvement doesn't tell us anything.
Well, actually, it does !
If they trial has worked:
Why are they extending it?
Wouldn't be because they haven't got the statistics they were hoping for, would it?
We know there wasnt a reduction in deaths.
Otherwise they would have told us !
And ended the trial and made the reduction permanent.
But they didnt !
We know there wasn't even a reduction in their usual weasel "Killed and "Seriously" (which doesn't mean seriously) Injured".
Otherwise they would have told us !
And ended the trial and made the reduction permanent.
.
What are the chances that they have both stayed exactly the same?
Very low I would have said:
So I think it's fair to assume that both killed and "seriously" injured have gone UP !
.
And there's even a link on that very page you link to which admits that:
>> "Lower limits just 'hold up traffic' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3396023.stm
.
You really must learn to read between the lines robert!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: Lowered Speed trial Extended. George Painter-Levi 501st - - 251st post - 20 Jun 2005 20:29
Actually, I may be being a little harsh on you robert.
Perhaps you were being cleverer than I was giving you credit for.
You are obviously aware that Suffolk is the classic example of lowered limits leading to raised fatality rates, thus giving me an opening to introduce this fact to the Beeb Guardianista anti-car guerrillas.
Yes, Suffolk, like the rest of the country had steadily falling fatality rates, achieving its lowest ever recorded fatality figures in 1995.
However, at the end of 1995 Suffolk County Council introduced 450 new 30mph speed limits, many of them on roads where no driver would expect to see such a low speed limit.
And guess what happened?
Yes, fatalities flew up by 11% in 1996 to 3,018, and have stayed above 3,000 ever since, hitting 3,252 in 2001!
The impact of the lowered limits were so dramatic that one Suffolk coroner famously denounced them asserting that unnecessary speed limits are detrimental to safety for various reasons including:
Reducing the opportunity to overtake, thereby making drivers try harder at other times.
Causing traffic to bunch.
Causing frayed tempers.
Causing delay which makes drivers try harder at other times to make up time that they have lost.
.
Well done robert:
Here's a tenner for this one!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant!
Who is this sarky so-and-so?!
Surely can't be any relation to our George Painter?