“I didn't ask if you knew what you were talking about you illiterate ignoramus.

I asked if you knew what you were trying to say.

Was that incoherent drivel supposed to be the answer?

.

Have you tried my little experiment yet?

Does your tiny brain even have the slightest inkling of what I'm trying to get you to see?

.

Accidents don't happen every day.

In fact, most days they don't happen.

And being the kind of phenomenon they are you might not get an accident for ages, and then one might happen.

Or a few.

.

And if a few happen close together they put in a camera.

.

But, just like the fact that after the single accident there wasn't an accident after it isn't down to whether or not a camera was put up after it.

Similarly, if you put up a camera after a spate of accidents:

The fact that you don't have another accident after the spate has *nothing* *WHATSOEVER* to do with the *CAMERA*

.

Try the experiment with the coin, you moron.

Or are you even incapable of tossing a coin?

I find that surprising considering how you spend your spare time.
.”

“Yes B J, I do know what I'm talking about.

If accidents fell after the introduction of cameras, then the most likely outcome would be that cameras have proved a seficient deterrent.”

“What the stupiding ell does that moronic post mean, Mr Moron?

Do you even know what you are trying to say?!?!?!
.”

“B J I just don't believe this.

If accidents fell after the introduction of cameras anything else would be too much of a coincidence.”

“As for the other thread, your cretinous moronicity has been demolished yet again on it.

The fact that the government chooses to cut corners and under-spec roads does not prove that roads will alway congest and moeny spent on widening is a waste:

It proves the *OPPOSITE*

If they spec the roads to handle the projected actaul traffic growth expected on the new road.

Instead of the minimal growth expected on the old one:P

Then we will have a proper functioning free flowing road system.

.

And how much would be saved if you scrapped all the railway and tram schemes, you moron?

What kind of an "arguement" is that?

.

Do you have even a passing aquaintence with the concept of rational thought?
.”

“Jesus H Christ, Mr Moron, you are such a *MORON* !!!!!!

Get out a coin and keep tossing it until you get three or four heads in a row.

Then take a photograph of your thumb.

Then tos the coin another three or four times.

Did it come up heads every time?

No!

Was it because of your camera?

*NO* !

You *MORON*

.

Pay attention:

They put in cameras after there have been a spate of accidents.

So of course the accidents go down afterwards!

It's called the reduction to the mean effect.

It's been pointed out as just one of many flaws in the speed camera stats.

Such as there was a falling trend anyway.

Cars are becoming much safer.

The original "study" results covered speed and traffic light cameras.

And areas that had major engineering improvements at the same time as the cameras were introduced.

But had no better stats than adjacent areas without either!

Also it was always expected that people would avoid roads with speed cameras.

But the "safety" camera partnerships never record the changes in traffic levels:

Only accidents!

It was actually admitted in an official study buried in the back of a safety camera partnership annual report that that most of the apparent reduction at camera sites was down to RTTM and long term trends.

And because they didn't keep traffic level records there was no way of telling if all, or even any, of the remainder was down to cameras.

In other words, depending on traffic levels:

Accidents could have GONE UP at camera sites!

How many times do you have to have this explained to you before it sinks into your thick skull, Mr Moron?!
.”

“Plonk, if you would like to stand and trade figures, last October, I heard on the Politics Show that figures showed us that across Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire, since speed cameras came in the numbers of serious accidents had been cut by between 50 and 80%.”

“Senseless!!! when will you stop posting LIES about speed cameras saving lives. Refer to your beloved can do nothing wrong labour governments report which very clearly shows only 2 yes two of the thousands of speed cameras have actually been PROVEN to save lives.
This is your beloved labour governments own report and admission of this fact which also clearly shows a marked increase in accidents around the majority of speed camera sites. They tried desperately to not have this document published until the road safety partnerships leaked it to the media because they were duped and conned by labour who tried on three occasions to get them to manupulate the accident statistics.”

“Albert, the fact is, road widening will not deliver the meaningful action that the CBI is calling for, because, as I have quoted on another thread, the predicted traffic levels when such schemes are planned are seriously underestimated.

I quote again:
'Believe it or not, £10bn is still earmarked for road expansion over the next few years, despite the track record of such projects being that of escalating costs and often not delivering the benefits originally promised.

Analysis from the Highways Agency itself shows that studies used to decide on whether or not to build a road often underestimate the impacts on emissions and noise and fail to predict how much extra traffic the roads will generate. There are serious questions about value for money in road spending.

The A14 widening scheme, currently at public inquiry, is forecast to cost us £1.4bn alone. If you cancelled the eight most expensive schemes still in the Highways Agency plans, then £5.2 BN could be saved.'

And that £5.2 billion could be better invested in schemes that provide a credible alternative to the car; HS2, Rail Electrification, new tram lines (including 1 to Kimberly and Eastwood) ETC.

In terms of cutting congestion the fact is that is more likely to work.

And B J, it is not just me supporting tolls; the CBI; the mouthpiece of the economy, the lifeblood of which is trying to flow through the arteries of our road system, as you say, supports tolling.”

“"according to the CBI; the much-touted mouthpiece of the economy, roads and congestion drain £8 billion out of it every year!"

No it doesn't.

What the CBI said is that "road congestion now costs the economy an estimated £7-8bn a year, which is likely to more than double by 2025 unless more action is taken".

Totally different from the spin you attempt to put on their statement.

They also say that ""Road investment should focus on congestion pinch points. Existing bottlenecks should be dealt with as a matter of priority and strategic links built between cities and to freight hubs."

Which supports the argument to dual the A453, among other initiatives.”